Talk:IPhone/Archive 11

300-page iPhone bill
Should probably get a mention in the see also section or incorporated into the article, since it is a perfectly legit article with lots of refs and is directly related to the iPhone. Don't know who removed it the second time Towel401 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as it has nothing to do with the iPhone device as it was AT&T that screwed up their billing. But it is relevant for the History of the iPhone article.  Furthermore, it is included in the iPhone and iPod Touch navigation box at the bottom. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pricing History section of article
Could someone create a subsection in the main Iphone article that details its pricing history? I think it would be helpful. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.218.208.49 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The price of the iPhone is not encyclopedic unless it is especially noteworthy (and I can't see why it would be), and Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. --  At am a chat 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I wrote about this in an earlier entry (in the archives now.) In short, certain types of prices, such as $666 for an Apple I are noteworthy. Because English Wikipedia is international, each mention of just one price ended up creating a huge list of conversions. And keeping up with the conversions due to the U.S. dollar changing added to the headache. Another thing to point out - I think most Web 2.0 thinking people want everything in one place. That is NOT the intent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be more of an introduction to an idea, and not a humongous article containing every little detail (which is why we have different types of Wikimedia projects, such as Wikinote, Wikipedia, Technical Wiki, WikiSource, etc.) It is OKAY and an accepted practice for a person to visit multiple resources on the Internet for information on the iPhone - trust me! Maybe I'm one of those who've yet to accept Web 2.0, but that's just me. Groink (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you have outlined exclusionism. However, some editors believe in inclusionism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet other editors believe in using reason, consensus, and policies to determine whether something belongs in an article, and therefore don't subscribe to either philosophy. --  At am a chat 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the moment, there is some pricing history in History of the iPhone. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That pricing history is a perfect example of the exception to the rule. As stated in WP:TRIVIA regarding price information, "Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation." The History of the iPhone addresses controversies relating to iPhone pricing, and it's necessary to list what those prices were to explain those controversies. However, including price history in an article just to inform people about how much an item costs or used to cost is inappropriate. --  At am a chat 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that what I said doesn't apply to the entire article. For example, in the History of the iPhone article it lists what the iPhone cost when it was first released, for no other reason than to inform someone of the original cost. That's an example of using Wikipedia as a (historical) price catalog. If it went on to say something like, "these prices were considered extremely high" and had a reference to back that up, then it might be justified, but again giving pricing information just to give pricing information isn't what Wikipedia is for. --  At am a chat 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pricing history dispute on History of the iPhone
There is an ongoing dispute on History of the iPhone  (talk)  subpage. It would be nice if some of the regular iPhone contributors could comment on this. I wish to see the best possible encyclopedia, but I realize that having a pointless edit war between two parties is not the way to accomplish it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have stated my position on the talk page for History of the iPhone. I would ask editors to fairly examine both sides. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

3G In-store activation only
There has been no news from Apple (or to my knowledge AT&T) that the 3G iPhone will need to be activated in store. A 3rd party site citing a rumor but no official statement that this will be the case is insufficient to include a definitive statement that it will have to be activated in store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.169.120 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

cost of iphone in India... ???
Please can i know, when iphone will be launched in India, wat wil be the cost ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.131.247 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is not a general discussion forum for the iPhone, this is to help improve the article. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, if you want to know how much something costs there are many places on the Web to find it. Try Google. --  At am a chat 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms?
I'm wondering why this article doesn't have a criticism section. I've read numerous reports on the iPhone's shortcomings, like lack of MMS and so forth, and these should be mentioned here to have a balanced article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayda (talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are discouraged, please read WP:CRIT. Criticisms of the iPhone are integrated throughout the article as they should be. If you read the article instead of skimming it for a criticism section you'll find plenty.


 * We really need a template at the top of this talk page explaining this. I swear that every time a discussion about how the article "needs a criticism section" gets archived a new discussion starts, and we rehash the same thing over and over. --  At am a chat 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
The term iPhone was originally used in the screenplay for Johnny Mnemonic, written in 1991, by William Gibson. I wonder why this information does not appear as the first entry in the Patents/copyrights/trademarks section. And, I wonder why an instance in 2006 precedes the 1993 infogear trademark application.

Also, as an aside, I wonder why this page is uneditable. The disgruntled feelings of consumers are of historical importance, and make the iPhone's pricing of historical importance. That is, unless culture and cultural appeal is considered pointless to wikipedia. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 15:31, 29 June 2008


 * If you can cite a reference for the "iPhone" on the Johnny Mnemonic screenplay, that would be awesome. My casual pokings didn't turn up anything. And the page is semi-protected to protect against persistent vandalism by anonymous and newly created accounts. For more information about what semiprotection does and doesn't mean, check out Protection_policy. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I Don't have a copy with me, so I couldn't tell you the page number, but a Thompson iPhone is one of the items Johnny needs when he and Jane break into the computer warehouse. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 12:19, June 30 2008


 * I don't understand what the use of a word in a movie has to do with copyright. If the word was indeed used in the movie, it is just a made up word, and it has no relation to the Apple product. It would more likely fall under a trivia section, which BTW is a section not recommended to be used on Wikipedia. In all, this is more fancruft than something of importance to this article. Groink (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be the first posting in pop-culture references, then. I'm kind of new. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 12:21, 30 June 2008


 * And iPhone is a trademark. You can't copyright a single word and there's no likelihood that anyone might think Apple is plagiarizing such a horrible movie. Apple has naming conventions that include "i" (e.g. iBook, iMac) so that's why they paid  Cisco for the right to use it for this smart phone. Mattnad (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

However, there is reason to expect that someone from Infogear, in 1993, might have been a friend or fan of the world's most popular computer-fiction author, and might have had access to it, then. And what do your personal opinions of the movie: "horrible", or the possibility: "no likelihood", have to do with the value of the information, itself? Allex Spires(zerooskul)12:34, June 30 2008

The iPhone used in Johnny Mnemonic is a phone-card attachment for a payphone that allows the payphone to act like a modern iPhone(minus the portability). And to quote the article: "Infogear's trademarks cover "communications terminals comprising computer hardware and software providing integrated telephone, data communications and personal computer functions"." So the object featured in the story does bear a remarkable resemblance what you consider to have no likelihood. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 14:51, June 30 2008
 * Wikipedia isn't a place for personal theories and speculation, see the no original research policy. If you can find a reliable source for your ideas then we can add it, see WP:RS for ideas about reliable sources. As for the Infogear phone, there's a totally different article about that, the link is at the top of the article (Linksys iPhone). The reason why "iPhone" directs to this article and not the other iPhone is because the Apple version of the phone has had a greater impact on culture and technology. Most people don't even know there's a different iPhone, and the Linksys version would have faded into obscurity as just another VOIP phone if it wasn't for the recent controversy over the trademark. In any case, welcome to Wikipedia and it's good to have you here. --  At am a chat 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also be sure to sign your posts with ~, it saves you from having to type your signature over and over and it looks more "official" as a signature. --  At am a chat 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion of the movie was more in fun than anything else. But in my opinion, had the marketing people Apple seen that movie, they would have trashed the "i" naming convention to avoid anyone connecting their products to Keanu Reeves' acting in that film. Yech. Mattnad (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the movie was popular with computer users at the time of its release; and Apple is not the originator of the term iPhone. Read further, I've conceded.  Allex Spires(zerooskul)16:52, June 30 2008
 * Oh PUL-EASE! EVERYONE involved in this argument came up with iPhone. Infogear came up with iPhone. Apple came up with iPhone. Linksys/Cisco came up with iPhone. Anyone in the future who never heard of Apple, Cisco, Infogear, etc. who comes up with the word iPhone will be original. You think that only one person or company in this world can come up with any one word/idea/etc, and everyone else copied. I'll give you an example here: calculus. Calculus was supposedly discovered by two different people, at two sides of the world, at two different time periods. Most people believe that "Oh, man, that 2nd guy must have read the 1st guy's manuscript!!!" when in fact it was just sheer coincidence. Going back to Apple/Cisco, here's what I believe happened... Apple didn't do the due diligence in researching who owned the trademark for iPhone. Once Apple announced the name iPhone, Cisco immediately called Cupertino. Apple then realized, "Oh, s**t! We didn't know!" but eventually settled out of court because it was such a good name for its product. I believe this because Apple is known to take a word or phrase, and then try to make it its own invention - regardless of what's already out there. The term "multi-touch" is a perfect example. Many of the Apple fanboys believe that Apple invented the term.


 * Two things to get out of this argument: 1) Not everyone on this planet is in-tune with everyone/everything else. We can in fact have multiple original idea for a given concept; the world is large enough to make this possible. And 2) If you do not do the due diligence in researching for potential conflicts, you're going to pay the price. Groink (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

zerooskul... First, your theory on Infogear is just that - a theory. We can't allow theories to be added to Wikipedia, and then wait later on to see if someone can prove it. Second, you cannot use yourself as a source - as Wikipedia does not allow primary sources to be used. You must be able to cite a credible source, written by a credible contributor (i.e. someone adding this tidbit on IMDB would not count.) The source would need to be a quote from an Infogear or Cisco employee since they're the one who were allegedly inspired by the movie and applied for the trademark to iPhone. And third, you must ALSO prove that the people at Apple Inc. were inspired by the Linksys device and basically "stole" the name from Cisco. But there is more evidence out there to disprove all of this - as someone else indicated that the pattern used by Apple (placing "i" next to words like Pod, Work, Mac, etc.) would naturally crank out the word iPhone. Groink (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does allow theories: proved ideas accepted by groups(evolution, Grand Unification); it does not allow hypotheses: unproved ideas of individuals(except fictional characters like: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jesus Christ, and God; because of their popular appeal). Yes, that pattern is there, iPod, iBook, iEtc.; but the article points out quite clearly that the origin of the term iPhone has nothing to do with Apple Computers, and that Apple had to buy the the trademark and concept outlined in that trademark.  So the fact of a pattern is pointless; don't argue for what you know is wrong...  That said, I just went back and watched the movie; he actually asks for Thompson Eyephones(referring to a virtual reality helmet).  The telephone attachment I referred to earlier is a different, unspecified piece of equipment... I also noticed that everyone in the movie refers to Johnny as a pneumonic courrier(a person carrying pneumonia) instead of mnemonic(a term for a memory assist, wherein you pronounce the em: m'nemonic).In the fututre I'll do research beforehand, rather than expecting my memory to be that good. All that said, the movie does phonetically feature an iPhone and the processes specified by the iPhone trademark.  However, I concede because this will only get silly. Allex Spires(zerooskul)16:36, June 30 2008
 * Theory about how the world was made, and who came up with the term iPhone first are on TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEVELS. When I said "theory", I would never have dreamed that someone would actually take the term to that extreme of a level. Theory that has been argued for centuries - yes, that is allowed on Wikipedia because a gazillion people - from philosophers to Al Gore have written about it. Theory about something on the level of fancruft that only 0.0000000000062 percent of the population would care about - I'm pretty sure Wikipedia wouldn't allow it. Groink (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew it was going to get silly. I'm almost being bullied.  I have concecded, but I'll see how silly it gets.  How would you define those levels?  I Think the world was created by fish falling into a bowl of magma.  See?  Same level.   The reason you wouldn't dream of someone taking THEORY to that extreme level of using its definition is because your school taught you that the English language was a toy when it's actually a tool.  Newspeak makes it impossible for people to understand each other, though we seem to speak the same language.  It's not your fault.  Are you sure that sixty-two trillionths of a single human is all of the world that would care about the possible Jeopardy answer of: "He coined the term: iPhone."  Or is that a hypothesis?  I'm pretty sure that the dweebs and stay-at-home husbands and wives from here to either Portland would gobble that up for crossword potential.  My hypothesis is that WikiPedia would allow such a pop-culture reference to be implanted.  But, it's not him and I was wrong.  Is this going to get sillier?  Allex Spires(zerooskul)23:39, June 30 2008
 * But you do know the difference between a scientific theory and speculation about the origins of the iPhone trademark. In all seriousness, it's this kind of language gaming that has been used by proponents of Intelligent design with their Teach the controversy tactics. Mattnad (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of technical issues/general comments. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.  Yes, speculation is hypothesis.  Theory is at least somewhat confirmed within the community.  I already went over that.  You read, right?  Allex Spires65.60.141.101 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy there Mnemonic fanboy. For someone who doesn't use an account, making threats to enforce policy is a bit over the top.  Relax.  We read too.  Frankie Goes to Hollywood198.23.5.73 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea how the last four posts relate to the topic, and because of my confusion I thought I'd point out that it's inappropriate, and some of it is bullying. I guess making people aware of the rules is threatening.  I'm not logged in, my computer sucks.  I have an account and I'm not being anonymous, either.  Allex Spires65.60.141.101 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude... it cuts both ways. You're a talkative guy and adding to the fluff.  Take it easy, take it easy. Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy. The Eagles 198.23.5.73 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay, we should just end this. I think everyone is in agreement that we can't add speculation without references due to the WP:NOR policy, and all that we're doing now is arguing semantics and running off-topic. No Johnny Mnemonic references in the article, no personal attacks from anyone, please keep it calm and let's all go back to arguing about other minutiae (iPhone photos, prices in the article, criticism sections...). --  At am a chat 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus phone
The page Jesus phone redirects to this article, but the article no where explains why. It doesn't even provide information in the introductory notes, that the phone is also sometimes referred to as the Jesus phone. A little etymology should be inserted and when that is done a note made in the introduction. --Hebster (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

...that, or the redirect should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This was discussed before on this talk page (check the archives.) Many electronic devices have nicknames. But I think nicknames like this, especially a non-Apple nickname, is more along the line of trivia than encyclopedic. Nicknames are not synonymous with "also known as" or AKA, as nicknames tend to be used more as expressions of affection (or something negative or in protest) for the device, while AKAs are less affectionate. If the information added context to any of the existing sections, then it would be good to add it into the article. For example, if the editor is attempting to introduce a proven fact the iPhone is extremely hyped, and the origin of Jesus phone was given as a form of protest, then maybe the nickname can be introduced. Another thing is that adding one nickname would set a precedence that we all might not want later on. I can see something like the iPhone having dozens of nicknames - and I don't think it is encyclopedic to cover every single one of them regardless of how widespread each nickname is used, as this would lead to fancruft. Groink (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the previous discussion the redirect was removed (as also seen in the jesus phone history), but it was reverted shortly after (perhaps because of the summary?). I still think that the redirect should be removed entirely or at least - if the explanation is more weighty than "AFAIK, it all started with Jesus Diaz at Gizmodo" - have an explanation. As it is now it makes no sense. On a side note: It has also been debated for speedy deletion in June 2007, with the result being it should be speedy deleted. On a side-side note: I actually did notice the former discussion. Would it have been more "right" to have re-opened that, instead of just starting a new one (as i did)? --Hebster (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is consensus that "Jesus phone" is a misplaced or otherwise ill-advised redirect I will nominate it for deletion shortly. JBsupreme (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the page should be removed entirely instead of just " |the Mahjongg way " :) --Hebster (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll second that notion, just nuke the silly thing. --  At am a chat 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I nuked the page as it had been deleted twice before. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G regional overview - 11th July launch
For the moment this is just a draft, perhaps when it is finished it can be included in the main article? This is the pricing for individual customers. Corporate pricing can vary. Sometimes the iPhone is offered at different prices depending on which monthly plan you choose.

Massive table removed PER WP:NOPRICES

A couple of things are not 100% clear to me
 * is the contract price with TIM in Italy for a locked or unlocked phone?
 * It seems that the contract free option with Swisscom is SIM locked, can anyone validate?
 * is the contract free option with Orange in Switzerland for a locked or unlocked phone (I assumed unlocked due to price)?
 * This is not the kind of information we want in this or any other Wikipedia article. See WP:NOTDIR, item 4. Wikipedia isn't a sales catalog, and adding that info does make this article look more like an advertisement. --  At am a chat 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement
I think this article in its current state looks like a very long advertisement for the iPhone (NB. What_Wikipedia_is_not). The criticisms and shortcomings of the device are hardly mentioned, and sprinkled around the article in a manner that one would need to spend half an hour reading through the article in order to establish what is not good about the phone. Interestingly, the good features of the phone are nicely laid out in a table on the right hand side, taking the reader a minute to go through them. The article even talks about the non-replaceable battery as if it was a nice little feature, rather than an annoyance intended to have the customer switch to a newer model after couple of years. Can't anything be done about this? 88.112.61.122 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ above. The "sprinkling around" of the shortcomings is the preferred way to have criticisms in any Wikipedia article. The table on the right hand side doesn't have the "good features", those are just raw specifications for the phone which is standard for pretty much every tech article. As for your criticism about the battery, it doesn't even hint that the non-replacable battery is a "nice little feature" and even mentions the complaints sent to Apple and AT&T from a consumer advocacy group. It can't get more balanced than that. --  At am a chat 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly talking about the style in which the article is written, and the mere fact that it's longer and more, let's say, poetic, than any other phone article I've found on Wikipedia (despite the market share being well below 1%). If you look at the talk about the phone's screen, it uses words such as "enables", "is accomplished" and has a pretty little comparison of a playing card to the phone's zoom function, too. I believe this advertisement-like style of writing is also what has prompted many people to try making a criticisms-section. There's a lot of useless information that belongs in a user manual or an advertisement and not in an encyclopedia. For example: "a playing song fades out when the user receives a call. Once the call is ended the music fades back in". I thought every modern phone does this? Why is this mentioned? 88.112.61.122 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The info about the "fading song" is a good point. There is certainly stuff that can be trimmed. Anything like that should be addressed and gotten rid of. I think the reason why there is so much info in this article is not because of an attempt to advertise, but because the phone gets so much media attention. That leads to 2 things: increased interest in the device and attention for this article, and also a lot of easily-verifiable information on the Web. It has also received an equal amount of harmful attention as well, which is why it needs to be locked against anonymous contributions (otherwise it turns into vandal city again).
 * I deleted the "fading song" info, but I'm wondering what would be a more neutral approach to some of your other examples. I'd encourage you to register a Wikipedia account if you can because you have some good suggestions and you could help quite a bit if you weren't posting anonymously. --  At am a chat 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted the "fading song" info, but I'm wondering what would be a more neutral approach to some of your other examples. I'd encourage you to register a Wikipedia account if you can because you have some good suggestions and you could help quite a bit if you weren't posting anonymously. --  At am a chat 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's one of wikipedia's big issues. The articles are basically media driven; the more media attention something gets, the longer the article becomes. No wonder there is very little information on many science and engineering related topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.182.134.93 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do already have an account, I just forgot to log on. I'll look through the article removing the most obvious useless points. It'd be good if a number of people went through some sections; I'll leave in the bits that can be more controversial for now - maybe I should list some here for discussion at some point in time? HJV (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Screen and interface" section may need some heavy work on it, as it seems there's a lot of irrelevant info there. I left it in, though, for now, to not make too radical changes... HJV (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

2 Year Contract
iPhone 3G purchasers will have an out as far as the 2 year contract goes, according to an InfoWorld article. Also, the original iPhone required a 2 year contract to purchase in the US (I remember I had to sign one to purchase my phone). As the InfoWeek article states, "this will mark the first time consumers in the United States are able to buy an iPhone without being tied down to a two-year contract." Some people were trying to insert language into the article that would mislead the reader into thinking that the iPhone 3G is the first phone to require such a contract, but not only is it not, it may be the first iPhone to not require it. --  At am a chat 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When the original iPhone was purchased, no contract was signed. It was a finished goods purchase like any other. During iTunes activation, however, most people were promoted to sign a 2 year contract for postpaid service. For folks such as myself, who failed the credit check, I signed up for a GoPhone prepaid plan from AT&T, with no contract involved. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can confirm, that you can get the 2g w/o contract (As a prepaid phone) Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what has changed is two things: eliminating the GoPhone plan, and requiring people to activate in the store (to prevent jailbreaking). If we do have the information about the 2 year contract, which seems to be notable enough to include, it should be made clear that the 2 year contract has always been around but is now mandatory, and that AT&T has announced that it is temporary. --  At am a chat 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In no way does in-store activation prevent jailbreaking. It does provide an incentive against unlocking, since you have to sign up for a plan. I don't see the need to include the contract detail for what is now a much less US-centric device. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I originally tried to delete the information for exactly the reason you stated, it doesn't need to be there, but others reverted that change because they thought otherwise. I'm just trying to be fair. --  At am a chat 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

lead image (again)
I love the new lead image, but for the fact that its months and months out of date. :/

I actually uploaded a replacement Image:IPhone_Black_BG.JPG on 21 June, but the thumbnail on the article page never updated.

I'm not opposed to leaving the new image that is currently there on the page, but a more recent one would be preferable, I think.

– ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a nice shot. The current one is a little crisper in the focus, but I like your composition better. One tweak - you might want to crop it a bit closer so the black border is smaller.  Also, hate to suggest, but any chance you can take it again, but see if you can control the focus a bit better?  More light might do it: smaller aperture means greater depth of field.  An alternative is to shoot it from farther away with a longer lens if you want to keep it darker around.  Might require different, remote, flashes. Mattnad (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh I really like that picture Frijole. --  At am a chat 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to get it redone soon. I've only got a little Canon point-and-shoot, so I'm fairly limited to the built-in flash and no real control over the aperture :/ – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a nice picture; much more up to date. However, shouldn't the lead image be of the iPhone 3G, seeing as soon, it will be the only iPhone sold in stores?Kodmkl (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Activation
"...caused a worldwide overload of Apple's servers on July 13th, 2008, the day on which both the iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2.0 updates were released." The date listed under this section is July 13th, should be July 11th I believe. Trevorep (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote that; I don't know why I said that. How did I let that happen? It's changed to July 11th.Kodmkl (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"The iPhone"
I think the article before the name should be taken off, Apple never uses articles in front of its products’ names, it's plain "iMac", "iPhone", etc. (I suppose it gives the products more personality, remember: "Say hello to iMac", "Introducing iBook".) See iPod ("iPod is a popular brand of portable media players") for example. 83.199.82.153 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a lame marketing trick from Apple. We shouldn't adopt it. The iPod article isn't particularly great, and for most of its lifetime (through at least February last year) it used "the iPod" for most of the article. It's that article which needs fixing, not this one. This is the only thing I can find discussing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone "Jailbreaking" and iPhone "Jailbreaking" Software
I keep reading about this phenomenon with regard to the iPhone but I've not had much luck figureing out exactly what it is, what it entails and why anyone would want to do it.

I'm quite surprised there is no mention of it in this article.

Contributions welcome! --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll add something about it at the bottom of the 'restrictions' section. Towel401 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, you got it pretty much totally wrong, but I'll fix it. ;) – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 12:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, if you've come here looking to figure out how to do it, Wikipedia isn't the place. --

 At am a chat 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably me. Omg I can't believe i actually wrote that. Facepalm Towel401 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You weren't addressing that to me by chance were you? I've been around here long enough to know better. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Availability
Forgive me if this debate has already been settled, but shouldn't there be some mention of the iPhone shortage, either here or in the History of the iPhone article? Apple seems to have badly underestimated demand for the iPhone, and there have been points when entire states have been sold out of the product. That seems worthy of inclusion. If this has already been discussed, I'll just slink out quietly. :)--Idols of Mud (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with placing information like this is that it is catalog-like. Besides pricing, inventory levels are also related to selling the product. Also, we can't be constantly editing this article, where one day stock levels are good, another day it isn't, and a day after that it is good. We really should focus only on information that is solid and never-changing. Groink (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we were able to find a good reference describing how the iPhone shortage has been significant, we can use that to justify adding such material (probably to the History article). But lacking that, it's just like Groink said, we shouldn't be reporting on routine sales information. --  At am a chat 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Add the image of iPhone 3G?
the lead image is really outdated...

it's the image of the old iPhone, and it's outdated...

I propose to replace the lead image with the picture of iPhone 3G...

The old lead image of the iPhone will move to other part of the article... Bentoman (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed above. --  At am a chat 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Third party applications
iPhone os 2.0 includes app store to download third party apps which can be downloaded using umts, edge or itunes on a mac or pc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.55.235 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much covered in the Applications section already, however it has been written more-or-less in the future tense, when in reality it's available now. That section should be rewritten, I don't have time right now myself. --  At am a chat 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: New categories
I'd like to propose we setup two new categories. First, a category named iPhone to contain articles related to iPhone and iPhone technologies. Second, a category named iPhone applications to list any iPhone applications with articles. There are already several articles about iPhone applications such as App Store and Pandora radio. Many more are sure to follow as some of the iPhone applications gain notoriety.

Oh heck, I see that there is already a stub for an iPhone category which points to Apple Inc. mobile phones (which by the way I think is a terrible name). Still, I do see a need for an apps category. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of 12V pins, incompatibility of 3rd-party accessories with iPhone 3G
The fact that the iPhone 3G, unlike its predecessor and all previous iPods, no longer supports charging though the 12V pins on the Apple iPod dock connector, only the USB pins, causes incompatibility of the iPhone 3G with virtually all third-party accessories A worthwhile detail to add? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Find a better reference, but yes. The 3G does not support the FireWire style 12V charging, which many dock adapters used. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "(Note: iPhone 3G does not support FireWire and will not charge from any FireWire-based power source.)" - http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1476 – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Optus should be added as a carrier for the iPhone.
According to Optus' official iPhone site and Apple's own site, Optus is a carrier for the iPhone in Australia. Could someone with higher power please add this?

Thanks, Jordsta (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Optus is included in the carrier list and also mentioned in the article text. Johnsu01 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I Am Rich
'I Am Rich' iPhone Application Retails for $1,000

An amusing article about an iPhone app that costs $1000 and does nothing but demonstrate to people that you are wealthy enough to blow $1000 on nothing. Not sure if it would belong in this article, or the iPhone OS article, or nowhere, but thought I'd bring it up. --  At am a chat 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Apple IPhone in Romania
Aple IPhone is officially in Romania for about a week now. But unofficially, people have it for about 2 years, so can someone please modify the map where it says "Available Later" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Huh? two years? - it's only been out 14 months in total anyway? --Phooto (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

64 bit iTunes not released for XP
The reference for claiming iTunes works on Vista 64 bit doesn't list XP and Apple's site doesn't include XP 64 in current iTunes of 7.71 - Jmillenbach (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The section should say that official 64-bit support is only for Vista, but that there's a workaround to get it running for XP 64-bit. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Apple IPhone in Poland
From today (22 08 2008), Iphone 3G is avaible first time in Poland from Era and Orange cellular network providers. --83.26.245.70 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

3G reception problems
I think we should start bringing up the increasing amounts of complaints that have been received about the iPhone 3G's reception, where a phone in the same carrier will get full signal and great speeds, while the iPhone will get nothing, switch over to EDGE, or be slow in general. It seems to be a hardware issue, and no one will own up to it. -- Dgcaste (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Apple is planning on fixing the entire problem with a software upgrade. -- Dgcaste (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem does not appear to be software (hence a patch wont "fix the entire problem") it appears to be the networks. There should be a section that treats the issue. -Zahd (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I call bullshit. Plenty of people have been using 3G on AT&T since 2004 without the problems that the iPhone 3G is having. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless, people are complaining, it's been covered widely, and Apple recently commented on the problem but who knows if it's just another red herring, blaming people not updating their firmware on the reason for the continued problem. Apple may be trying to shift blame to the public. The way Apple followers usually think, this will stick - an Apple device's failure is usually caused by the uninformed or uneducated user. -- Dgcaste (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Think about it. If Apple finds a problem, and gives a solution in a firmware update, and people who don't update their firmware continue to have the problem, don't they deserve the blame? Unless it can be shown that the update doesn't work, then how can you fault Apple? Sure they screwed up but they were at least responsive to it. --  At am a chat 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What's specific about this situation is that the people that DID do the upgrade will still suffer while there's people out there that haven't updated. The fault flies off Apple's hands, directly into the users, and the tech-minded end-user can do nothing about it. How can you possibly measure how many people haven't upgraded to 2.0.2. You just can't. In light of how they don't have press releases on their bugs, it's peculiar that when they do speak out it's to blame the people that were clamoring for the update. This is not unlike an abusive relationship. -- Dgcaste (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

iPhone has a chip from Infineon that is defective and causes phone calls to drop. It's covered widely and should probably be included in the page somewhere near the middle / top. There is a class action lawsuit against Apple for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.80.102 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That has already been discussed, see Dgcaste's link above to the Businessweek article discussing Apple's decision to fix "software on the chip". --  At am a chat 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the person complaining about false advertising above, but I have not had any 3g issues with my iPhone. The problem is the networks, not the phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.81.65 (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Me either, but I suspect the problem is a combination of both. -- Dgcaste (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Limitations section
For full disclosure, this a response to User:Neon Sky, who added a "limitations" section to the article, posted here for community visibility and response. I'm not trying to be stiff or alienate you, NF, I'm trying to gently introduce you to the notion that, while (theoretically) anyone can edit Wikipedia, and its articles evolve over time, they are not haphazard or unplanned. We have been over this ground before as a "criticism" or "reception" section; look above or through the archives. Wikipedia is not a catalog or price guide; it is an encyclopedia. Nor is is a soapbox for you to vent personal complaints about the device. (I don't know if this is the case, but past experience suggests the possibility.) We mean to cover the subject by topic, not by good and bad. Drilling down to specifics, the issues with Flash are mentioned in the fourth paragraph of Internet connectivity. The iPhone does support MMS (in some countries), as mentioned in the last sentence of the texting section. Furthermore, all of your concerns are unsourced, which is unacceptable (theoretically, in the long term...). Anyway, I hope I haven't dissuaded you from contributing, and I'm glad you're jumping right in and being civil, but please understand that good faith contributions do not always help the encyclopedia. If you still have questions, please ask them below.HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from all the stuff that is already covered in the article, the only thing that is remotely interesting is the claim that JavaScripts (not Java) are limited to 5 second and HTML pages are limited to 10MB. This appears to be based on a web page that University of Washington posted before the iPhone was released that was based on NDA content from a WWDC. Both seem like reasonable limits, but there is every possibility that these limits may have changed before the original iPhone was released, and/or that the limits (if there are any) are different on subsequent iPhones. If anyone has any reliable sources on whether these limits are there on actual released iPhones that might be worth adding to the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't argue with that. HereToHelp (talk to me) 05:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)