Talk:IPhone/Archive 16

3G S separate page!
Are you all suggesting that when a 4th, 5th, 6th iphone comes out we just keep adding to this page until it becomes a cluttered mess??

If people looking on wikipedia (like i was) for specific information on th iPhone 3G S, it is extremely difficult to sift through the various information pertaining to the First and second generation iphones. I would highly recommend from a simpleton's point of view that the articles be separate so it is easy to distinguish between the functions of the various devices.

Using an example, there are many similar nokia and RIM mobile phones that seem to have their own pages and descriptions. Given the iphone is such a popular device in terms of research and consumer appeal, you would think putting them on separate pages would be a wise (not to mention helpful) move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.116.126 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A separate page, to avoid redundant information, would be a permanent stub because there isn't enough to differentiate the iPhone 3G S from the previous models. There was a different article, and it was recently merged to this article because there was no justification for keeping them separate. The entire discussion is listed above on this same page. --  At am a chat 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're both right. Neither approach is scalable to when, as you suggest, there are (hypothetically) six models of iPhone. Six pages in one is not the answer. Six permanent stubs is not the answer, either. Which gives me an idea...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good bit of information there. Brianreading (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To address this I have created List of iPhone models, modeled after List of iPod models. HereToHelp, I hope you don't mind, but I added your comparison table into the article. - Epson291 (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone should be a seperate page from the iPhone 3G and 3G S (3G and 3G S should be one page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisss1104 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? What makes the iPhone 3G and 3G S so dramatically different from the first iPhone model, but so similar to each other? --  At am a chat 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone 3G S vs iPhone 3Gs
Several places in the article the term "iPhone 3Gs" is used to describe as the plural of iPhone 3G. Because of the name of the new version "iPhone 3GS" or "iPhone 3G S" is ambiguous it makes sense to switch to using rules for plurals of symbols and initialisms. This would mean that "iPhone 3G's" would be the plural of the older version and "iPhone 3G S's" or "iPhone 3GS's" would be the plural of the newer version. PaleAqua (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that's how we would do it but I agree that is a problem. Can we eliminate every occurrence of iPhone 3Gs?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem necessary, since the plural would be lowercase (iPhones, iPhone 3Gs or iPhone 3G Ss) while the newer product has a space and is uppercase. Wikipedia XP (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "iPhone 3GS" is not the problem, "iPhone 3Gs" is since this is ambiguous especially to someone coming from a standpoint of no product knowledge. It's also a term like "Brigadiers General" where people often pluralize the wrong word. iPhones 3G is probably the correct pluralization, as "iPhone 3rd Generations" doesn't strike me as correct. If so that tells you how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.79 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably true... Can I guess we using (for the singular) "iPhone 3G S", right?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and I'm not sure that's an appropriate analogy. First off, the product name is iPhone 3G S, not iPhone 3GS. Second, 3G is simply part of the product name; it is understood it stands for 3G broadband (not 3rd generation) but is not an abbreviation. Similar to Mustang GT, you would not refer to more than one car as Mustangs GT. Wikipedia XP (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First 3G in 3G broadband stands does stand for "third generation". And yes the name is "iPhone 3G S", but the presence of the space doesn't make 3Gs less ambiguous. Also if you look at the logo used for example at the page, you will see that the "S" is set in a smaller type which a cap-height matching the size of the lowercase letters in iPhone. Finally these names, because they end with initializations fall into one of the rare cases where " 's " is used for plurals. I actually agree with HereToHelp, that the best approach is to side step the issue and rephrase the four or so problematic sentences. PaleAqua (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a related issue: with the third generation (of iPhone, not network technology) the iPhone is seeming more like a product line than a single product, much like cars are updated yearly. Should we rephrase the lead to refer to "a line of multimedia smartphones"?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very much against pluralizing the 3G as "iPhones 3G". It's simply incorrect. As was pointed out, "3G" is part of the name, not just an adjective. If we were to take such a bold step to pluralize the name in a manner different than the rest of world, why not make it even easier and replace each instance of "iPhone 3G" with "3G iPhone"? "3G iPhones" is easier to read than "iPhones 3G" and a reader is less-likely to miss the pluralizing "s".  I'm totally on board with simply adding an apostrophe (iPhone 3G's). PaleAqua has even been kind enough to link a guideline that suggests we do that anyway. Or sidestep it altogether. --  At am a chat 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with 3G meaning 3rd generation. I think it is just sheer coincidence that the 3rd generation phone and the 3G technology support were released as the same product. Otherwise, this new phone would not be a G3 S phone, but rather a 4G S or something similar to it. The phone continues to use the 3G network, therefore the 3G is kept in the name. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? 3G refers to the network; the iPhone 3G was the second generation of the iPhone. The 3G S uses 3rd generation networks, as does the 3G (no S), but is also the 3rd generation of the iPhone.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gomen ne, I was commenting on PaleAqua's post earlier. But you did remind me that indeed the "S" model is 3rd-generation. Thanks! [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 04:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, this sums up the OP's argument: "yes the name is "iPhone 3G S", but the presence of the space doesn't make 3Gs less ambiguous." I disagree with this statement, and therefore don't believe there should be changes to the plural wording. Brianreading (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the plural of "iPhone 3G" to be "iPhone 3Gs", but that's because I'm quite a pedant with apostrophes in plurals, it's just wrong! But I suppose the plural of iPhone 3G S does pose an interesting problem, I'll see what the editors decide! (I did take the apostrophe out of one plural, I'm sure it'll get changed back!) Scottrb (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like we aren't the only ones wondering how it's done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Apple IIGS, they pluralize it as Apple IIGS's. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So then what's the possessive? I say we just use "units", or "models", or reword the sentence. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that would be a good way to, at the very least temporarily, clear some ambiguity. Brian Reading (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Apple has decided that the name of the product is "iPhone 3GS" (no space) and is in the process of standardizing their literature. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He's right. Someone needs to do a find and replace operation. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ by User:JasonAQuest. Mushroom (Talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the History and availability section
This section is too long! Because this section is an introduction to the History of the iPhone article, this section shouldn't be more than two or three paragraphs. I think only the most recent availability information should be in this section, delete everything else, and use the history article as the archive. groink 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's called recentism. But granting that the amount of history never decreases, we do need to find some form of summary. I'll go through it and try to make some easy cuts. If anyone protests them, they can revert - but please, do so in part, by sentences, instead of the whole edit.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How's this?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a great start! Thanks! I just have a huge problem with this article being over 91KB, and I'm looking for ways to shorten it. I tried looking in the special pages to see where this article ranks in terms of size; the list doesn't go beyond 1000 pages, but it appears that this very article is in the top 1500, out of nearly 3 million articles. And it isn't even about a person or politics - it's about a cell phone! Thanks! [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 23:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's one-and-a-half times as long as Macintosh, but it doesn't feel as long. Part of it is all the references (more than twice as many as the Mac article, all with citation templates). 172 references * 100 characters per reference (estimate) = 17.2 KB.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

UNDENT: FYI, WP:SIZE only applies to the content, not the formatting or references. To get an accurate view of the current size of the article just copy/paste the body (not the wikimarkup, the actual text) and preview it to see how large it is. Currently we are looking at about "37 kilobytes long". There are quite a lot of references!!! ~ Paul T +/C 22:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction section, revisited
C'mon, Dario! Give the damn battery issue a rest! We do not want the reader to read the intro section and immediately get slammed with these kinds of issues. Read WP:LEAD. In short, the introduction serves the purpose of summarizing the product in just a few sentences, and highlights the major components of the article that is to follow. You're continuing to push your personal agenda of exposing issues with the battery. You are not going to turn this article into a soap box because of an issue that clearly affects you personally. It is like writing in the intro section for Barack Obama that he's the president of the United States, and oh he's also a smoker and eats too many cheeseburgers, which can cause health problems during his presidency. What now? Are we going to see some changes to WP:LEAD like you did to WP:CRIT? groink 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dario D., you won't run your agenda here against the consensus. If you have read WP:LEAD, it's clear that you've shrugged it off to suit yourself. I want to stress the statement that "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." Your edits don't reflect this at all. I'm standing fully with Groink here. Brian Reading (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dario's latest edits are basically something like this... "The iPhone is popular, but the battery sucks." "The iPhone has been sold by the millions, but the battery still sucks." "The iPhone is made of plastic, metal and silicon... And did I mention the problem with the battery?" "The iPhone has changed mankind overnight, united everyone to the point where they're all singing Kumbaya... But GADS the battery is just TERRIBLE!!!" "Steve Jobs recently had a liver transplant. But don't mention to him that the battery on his iPhone is awful, otherwise he'll also need a heart transplant." I'm sorry that I'm satirizing a serious issue with these edits, but in an creepy sort of way, I am on-mark when it comes to conveying Dario's overall ideology. I don't see any solution in view anytime soon. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 06:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm re-explaining the issue here... It isn't like Dario's actually going to read it (or read it and ignore it.) The problem with his edits is that he's attempting to throw off the balance of this article, by making the battery issue a major component of this article. By including it in the introduction section, people are going to read into this as if the battery issue is on the top-3 of things about the iPhone. Just take a look at his edits - he sticks in the thing about JD Power in THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH! Within the first five seconds, a new reader will read "iPhone.... BATTERY!" Why isn't the dependency of iTunes in the introduction? Why isn't the incompatibility with most bluetooth headphones covered in the introduction? Like iTunes and bluetooth, the battery and its issues is secondary, and therefore should not be summarized in the introduction.
 * He claims to have read WP:LEAD but continues to edit his own merry way, so I can only assume that, again, his train of thought is truthfully corrupt and one-sided with no compromise, and there is absolutely nothing that can be said constructively that can convince him otherwise. The only thing I can recommend at this point is to just let him do what he's been doing, continue to revert when necessary (watch your 3RRs,) and let Wikipedia document the entire process. The further he goes on this pattern with not only this but with several other articles, the more documentation we'll all have on this guy, and maybe some day his account can be shut down. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 07:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the 3RR won't be an issue if we stick with consensus, and make the same reverts. Yeah, I agree that he's pretty much just digging a hole for himself as far as documentation goes on Wikipedia.  His contributions will be accessible to everyone. Brian Reading (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid 3RR, just have two vs. one. When the time comes, I have prepared a list of diffs. Sine I am away from the computer and working from, well, an iPhone, feel free to add to it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're editing from an iPhone?! That's a COI!!!! Just kidding. I've been trying to be fair throughout this whole affair but it's difficult. We're all agreed that the battery criticism is relevant, supported, and helps the article by being included. What is not agreed upon, what is in fact almost unilaterally opposed, is giving undue weight by making a whole section for it or putting it in the lead. --  At am a chat 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. If Dario D. continues as he has been, I suggest we might try The Media Cabal. It seems to be the next logical step in dispute resolution, since a request for a third party opinion brought a neutral reply (which nonetheless said that a criticism section was unnecessary) and the RFC was ignored. I don't have a lot of faith that it will lead anywhere, since the editor in question has so far not bent in the slightest but it's best to have faith in the process and give him a chance. I certainly don't mind the information that Dario has been providing for the article, but I don't like the attempt to change the focus of the article to be about "what is wrong with the iPhone". --  At am a chat 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reception section content
I propose that this section be removed, because this information is already elsewhere in the article. Positive reception of the iPhone is already well-represented throughout the article as well through the many sales figures that are illustrated. Basically, this information seems redundant. Brian Reading (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur regarding removal of this section. The problem with this section is attempting to convey the feeling during multiple releases, now that there three generations of the iPhone. For example, the reception was much less during the release of 3G than 2G or 1G. The purpose of this when the 1G was first release was warranted, but nowadays it is a non-issue. If anything, the reception should be tracked in the history article. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 08:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section needs to be deleted, but try to salvage some of the refs, like the Nielsen survey. HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a criticism section with a different name. There has been an exhaustive discussion of this issue and only one tendentious editor insists on including it against all consensus. There is no need for one and all it will do is reduce the quality of this article. --  At am a chat 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like a clear consensus is forming (arguably this had already been discussed as well). Let's leave this up for just a little bit longer to make sure nobody else wants to chime in here. Brian Reading (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section appears to have disappeared, thanks to an editor who merged the content into another section. The paragraph carried over, however, was odd. In the first sentence, it mentioned that the iPhone was popular, but had battery and Internet connectivity issues. But the following sentence rattled off a survey, mentioning the top three reasons people weren't buying the device - and neither the battery nor the connectivity issue was among them. This is what I mean by balance, and as someone else mentioned as undue weight. Although one can collect a zillion references about the battery, it only demonstrates that it is a known problem. BUT, none of the references draw the context that it a top priority for people not to purchase the iPhone. I see this in many articles - people posting references to force upon an issue, but are unable to contextually link the reference to the section's issue at-hand. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One other thing I forgot to mention regarding Internet performance. One thing we must watch for is to be country-centric. The mention about 'net performance may be the result of either the model of iPhone, the choice of carrier, or the coverage area. I mentioned in another section that I passed by the iPhone, and chose instead the laptop/wireless broadband solution. I subscribe to the AT&T wireless broadband service, which is the exact same 3G network as the iPhones. In short, the 3G performance is not that great. The 3G coverage is also not that great, as many locations I've been to show only one or two bars for 3G access. When searching for references, we should take the due diligence in making sure we don't find ourselves blaming the iPhone outright, when it could very well (also) be the carrier or the coverage area. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical specifications Reference
This page appears to have a summary of Iphone and Ipod touch technical specifications. It should be included as an additional reference.

http://petrolstone.uuuq.com/iphonespecs.php

Imsome (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS to see what a reliable source is. That site isn't one. And if you're trying to spam your web site (because I see you've linked that site on 3 different pages so far) give up. --  At am a chat 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GAR

 * I have some issues with the review of this article (a lack of a reception section fails WP:NPOV, are you serious?!) but I have to agree with the lack of stability. Editing this article can be like nailing Jello to a tree. It's just in too much flux to be called "good", and while it might be "good" at one point it might have issues a week later. --  At am a chat 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that every article deserves to have a reception section when and where applicable. Why should this article not have a Recption section and be a GA and yet all novels articles require such a section. But anyway, as I mentioned before, the article is unstable and it is that reason for which I failed the article. A good article should be stable and not prone to content disputes, edit warring etc. Cheers, Pmlinediter   Talk 07:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
 * My opinion on reception was salvage, not delete. We're back to the old conundrum: while reception belongs, to an extent, a reception section will probably become a POV magnet. As for stability, you caught it at the wrong time (3GS + Dario = chaos). I'm going to try to see what I can take from the short-lived reception section and add it to history and availability, even if it is just a few sentences. I think this deserves an image of people waiting in line, but I' having trouble getting the images to format correctly on all displays. For example, the unboxing picture is too early in portrait views and too late in landscape. The gigantic infobox doesn't help.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you work on the article and re-nominate it within few months. I'll be pleased to review it again. Regards, Pmlin   editor  07:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

New image
Hey Guys, I've uploaded a pic of the original, 3G and 3GS and their boxes on wikimedia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Iphone3g3gs.jpg

I can't add it as I haven't been autoconfirmed.Linux insidev2 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not like this new photo. I also don't like where these photos are heading. For the infobox, there should be a photo of only one device. Not two. Not all. It is all right to use one model as a sample that represents all the other models. Groink (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that it isn't great, but at least is communicates that there are 'three models. Do you have suggestions? You're welcome to dig through commons:Category:IPhone; I've done a pretty thorough flickr search and took the best free images.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can't we just use the latest photo from Apple, like they're doing on the iPod Touch article? The original argument was that, this being the English Wikipedia, with the servers being situated on U.S. soil, the consensus was to break the GFDL non-free rule by trumping it with the U.S.'s fair use law. Of course, this prevents the image from carrying over to other GFDL-licensed projects within Wikimedia (which is what I kept bringing up,) but using the fair use image (and oddly enough, apply the non-free license template) was the consensus. Groink (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs do not make a right. iPod Touch does not receive the scrutiny iPhone does. Fair use assumes no free alternative, and that is not true. Firstly, any screenshot will be copyright, but not necessarily the hardware. An image released by Apple is 100% copyright; an image taken by a user, released under, say, CC-BY, still retains Apple's copyright of the only the software. In the new, three iPhones image, I would say that the screen quality is so poor, and other elements are represented (the boxes) that the software is de minimis. I've asked the uploader to try for a better shot; we'll see how it goes. The other option is to ask for a rendering...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of images... There is some serious pinching going on in the [|Screen an input] section. Are all four images really necessary? --Bobblehead (rants) 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the sensor images don't add much and have the digitally-added highlighting ellipse, which is potentially misleading. I'm fine if someone wants to delete them.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Linux insidev2 has uploaded File:Iphone2g3g3gson.jpg and File:Iphone2g3g3gsoff.jpg. I think these are technically superior to his old image, an have replaced it, but groink's point about one device still stands. Namely, if they are similar enough not to warrant separate articles, why are three models pictured?HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The new image is a great improvement (although that glare kinda throws me off a bit) but, I agree that it is probably best that we have a single image of the latest product or the original product. Brian Reading (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care much for the image, for two reasons. Firstly, it looks like a picture of 3 identical phones, they could all be the same model as far as I can tell. Except for the misleading "thing" on the right-most model, is that glare? Is the point of the picture supposed to be that all of the models are identical from the front? Secondly, the misleading glare (or whatever it is) implies that one of the phones has some dramatic difference from the two that it doesn't, because of the poor quality of the image. Unless you are showing the backs of the phones (which doesn't seem appropriate for a representative image) there's no point in having all 3 in the picture. --  At am a chat 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so maybe it might not be such a great idea. I have uploaded two candidates (to the Commons, claiming de minimis on the screen - I won't tell anyone if you don't). Take your pick, or go through Flickr. (Check all three Creative Commons boxes under Advanced Search, and use Flinfo.) Or try the category; I've scavenged Flickr pretty thoroughly. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is IT!!!!! Go with it! Groink (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that picture is perfect. --  At am a chat 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I further cropped the photo, and also added a top for balance with the bottom. I don't know how to update a photo of this nature. If my update is good enough, please update. Groink (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me! Brian Reading (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm. What about the part of the phone that was cut off in the original? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you better act fast: it's already up for deletion. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) What can we do? If the claim about the interface being copyrighted is true, I can't see any way to fix that. The interface is also an old argument I've seen time and time again. I wish there were precedence within Wikipedia on this issue. And, it is surprising to see that the guy who uploaded the photo to Flickr is also voting to delete the image off WikiCommons. Maybe he never wanted the image to be used on Wikipedia? Groink (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I can't see any difference between an image of the iPhone with the OS displayed, and any photo in this collection. Groink (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because those are uploaded locally, to Wikipedia, while the one for deletion is on the Wikimedia Commons. Upload the image locally and claim fair use and you'll be fine. But that doesn't address the tight crop; perhaps you can contact the original Flickr poster for a better shot? HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, fair use wouldn't really apply because there must not be a free alternative available in order for the rationale to work properly. Since a free alternative does exist, fair use doesn't fly. Brian Reading (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No free alternatives exist of the interface (including a plain black screen) that wouldn't misrepresent or malign the subject. Free alternatives of the hardware exist - that's why we can't use an image from Apple - but anything on Flickr under CC-BY(-SA) works fine.

ACTIVATION
It should be noted that you can purchase all current iPhone models direct from Apple Australia. The phones are purchase outright (no contracts) and totally unlocked (can be used with any network).

The phones sell for: 3G 8GB  - A$719 3GS 16GB - A$879 3GS 32GB - A$1040

The reason apple sells them like this in Australia and no where else is because of Australias extremly stricked anti-competition laws. They can't have an exclusive carrier like they do elsewhere.--1dog1bone (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)