Talk:IPod/Archive 1

Picture/text overlap
Minor technical problem: the picture of the iPod shuffle covers some of the text. I would fix it, But I have limited experience with Wikipedia notation. Any more expreienced wikipedians wanna take care of it? -- Comrade009
 * Looks fine to me. could be your browser. -Adjusting 07:44, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Article title
A minor niggle - shouldn't this article be titled iPod, not IPod? -- ChrisO 16:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Not if you do the same as IMac. - Mark 16:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tried moving page to iPod but I guess it's impossible because they are basically the same. Can someone find out if it is possible to rename all incorrectly capitalized iApp/iAccessory names? It's getting annoying... -- Applegoddess 21:46, 18 Feb 2004


 * It's a software issue, Apple. Check out List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki. Dysprosia 05:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's actually not a software issue... rather a policy choice.
 * The English language encyclopedia is set not to accept a lowercase character as the first letter of a page title. For example, the articles on eBay and pH are found at EBay and PH respectively.  This is a policy choice, not a technical limitation.

Skippingrock

I contemplated moving this to "Apple iPod," similar to Apple iTunes, but then decided against (and moved it back). It is sold as the iPod, not the Apple iPod. cuiusquemodi 21:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Needs Updating
I'm surprised the latest revision of the iPod lineup isn't already put up. 2G mini, cheaper mini, 30 gig ipod photo... Dave 07:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to look more closely. They're all there and have been since their release.  --rae 17:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * oh, I saw some old info and assumed it was all old. I'll delete the stuff or put it in past tense Dave 17:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * All taken care of. Dave 17:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cut-down version of Mac OS X?
A recent edit added this assertion: The basic core operating system of the iPod is a cut-down version of Mac OS X, and incorporates QuickTime. Is that really true? My understanding is that the iPod runs an OS which was written specifically for it, not one which is derived in any way from Mac OS X. And while it is compatible with some file formats which QuickTime recognizes, I don't believe it actually has QuickTime software in it, does it? - Brian Kendig 02:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought someone would jump on me for this ;-) It surprised me too, but it seems to be true. In the latest issue of MacTech, which I subscribe to, there is a long and detailed article about reverse engineering the iPod. The upshot is that the iPod's core is OS X using the Pixo UI layer, and it does indeed include QuickTime - the article then goes on to explain how this can be leveraged to actually play QT movies on the iPod screen. Unfortunately MacTech do not publish current articles online until about a year after they've been in the mag, so I can't back this up with a link, but there may be others who can confirm this. Graham 03:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so the iPod would be running a Mach-O kernel with a BSD like system? I find that _very_ hard to believe, though I haven't read the article. &mdash; David Remahl 03:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I guess what isn't said is what they mean by "cut down". I don't have the article in front of me but I'll re-read it when I get home and see if I can shed any further light.Graham 03:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This was wrong, and has been removed. PPOS (PortaLPlayer OS) is the core operating system of the iPod, it is a custom OS designed to make use of the dual cores of the PP5002 Chip that runs the iPod. BKnauss 07:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * How do you KNOW it is wrong? Why would the author of the MacTech article lie about this? The article explains how to play QT Movies using some basic scripting techniques. The article includes these scripts so you can do this on your own iPod if you want. The scripts (note - not code) are written on the assumption that the OS is OS X, and the WHOLE of QT is available. I haven't yet tried them but I intend to (actually IIRC the article is spread over two issues, I haven't received the next issue yet). Apple haven't said anything about the internals of the iPod, and they have been in charge of its development for a long time since it was handled by PortalPlayer - so it is perfectly possible that they have rewritten/ported the OS to suit themselves. Also, the colour GUI on the Photo iPod has an Aqua look, so elements of Aqua have been added whatever the underlying system might be. In the light of no evidence to the contrary, but some evidence to support it, the iPod's OS could well be OS X in some form. Graham 03:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * IMHO the iPod is still using the PortalPlayer platform. http://www.portalplayer.com/products/platforms_mediaplayer.html No QuickTime. No Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan 09:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is how you play movies on your iPod Photo  AlistairMcMillan 08:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I have now had a chance to re-read the MacTech (Vol 20, No4, p.32) article in depth. It was written by a chap called Tim Monroe, who is a member of the QT engineering group at Apple, it says. The article goes on at great length about how he reverse engineered the iPod, and how you can track down files on its disk with names such as mach.sys and mach_krn, and then how the "applications" such as Solitaire turned out to be ROT-13 encoded ASCII scripts in a language called SNOJOB, a variant of SNOBOL. I was writing this up at great length when I suddenly noticed that this was the April issue (my subcription runs notoriously late). There are further clues in the article, such as using the "undocumented" command line argument -af with ls to get the kernel listing - the suggestion is that this stands for "all files", but obviously it doesn't. Hooking up my own iPod I get different results. So it looks like I fell for an elaborate joke, so I'm feeling pretty silly right now! He obviously went to a lot of trouble, with stacks of example code in SNOJOB and even screen shots showing the iPod "playing" a QT movie.... What can I say, I fell for it, and propagated it to WP too - well done Tim, you got me. At least I didn't get as far as typing in all that code heh heh... My apologies to all who have entered into this today - at least the misinformation got jumped on quickly. Sheepishly, Graham 10:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well anyway, some did actually do it a long time ago on one of the old ipods...Lets see if I can find the link...--156.34.221.41 16:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm... Can we delete this entire section involving Mac OS X? It was obviously a mistake. Rskjr 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
I find the new "Criticism" section in the article to be somewhat biased. It seems like the author believes that Apple has an obligation to open the iPod to music formats which compete with Apple's own, and the wording of this section (especially things like "Apple responded ferociously") seems to imply that Apple is being a bully by not licensing its own file format. To the contrary, I believe that if Apple allowed competitors to sell protected music for the iPod, then competitors would do so - and at a cheaper price than Apple, because the competitors don't have to shoulder the cost of iPod research and development, and this would undercut Apple Music Store sales and possibly spell the end of the iPod. - Brian Kendig 03:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm happy for you that you think that, but it's not the job of Wikipedia to promote the iPod or look after Apple Computer's bottom line--it's to provide accurate information on the topics covered in articles, and that includes fairly reporting on criticism whether individual contributors agree with it or not. Or would you rather the article confine itself to purring about industrial design and not attempt to discuss criticism at all?


 * I don't necessarily believe Apple has an "obligation" to open the iPod to other formats, although I do think they've handled the whole thing in an extremely jerkass way which, not incidentally, is the reason I got a Zen Touch recently and not an iPod. Thought experiment: if Microsoft exercised the kind of Politburo-like control over the WMA format that Apple does over AAC/iTunes/the iPod, would it be sufficient for the WMA article to mention in passing that Microsoft is not legally obligated to open anything up to anybody, or would it be appropriate to talk about the inevitable controversy that such a policy would engender entirely apart from any legal issues? I think the question answers itself.


 * In any event, my opinion on the controversies I wrote about is utterly unimportant, and irrelevant to the fact that Apple's business practices with regard to the iPod have engendered criticism and that that criticism is important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article on the subject. If you feel the need to leaven the section by including the official company line on each of the controversies covered therein, by all means do so, although I hardly think that such an otherwise-glowing article needs any more sugar ladled into it as it is. --Paul 06:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Paul, I don't think Brian is saying the section on criticism shouldn't be there, but rather, he doesn't like the way it is written. I do find the section slightly slanted.  Most of it is ok, but there are certain things, like the use of words like "ferocious" (was Apple's response any stronger than usual?), and taking every opportunity to mention facts like Apple documentation not mentioning Real's hack being broken in the last update (obviously trying to insinuate something, although what, I can't be certain) or the "fact" that the iPod "retails for significantly more than some competing products with similar specifications" (similar?  as in plays music and is about the same size?).


 * Also, some things are misleading or just doesn't make sense. For example, the section concludes with the remark that because users with WMA collections and an iPod will have to keep two collections or be "forced" to convert everything to AAC, this will encourage them to buy Apple.  Huh?  Seems to me some users will be encouraged to buy a WMA compatible player.  Not to mention, why are they forced to convert to AAC?  A reasonable thing to do is convert everything to MP3, which will play on (as far as I know) every player (even Sony's now).


 * In any case, I will fix these things and some other things. I think most of it is fine, so let's see if Brian agrees that the section (after my edits, for example) is NPOV. --C S 07:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem witha criticism section, as long as upholds a neutral point of view. By the author's own admission his own point of view is not neutral, and as a result it would be very hard, though certainly not impossible, to report any criticism neutrally. One thing I do think is important to note, especially in the light of the microsoft analogy above, is that AAC is an open standard whereas WMA is not. It's Apple's encryption/DRM that is not open, just as WMA's encryption is not open. I'm still unsure whether Apple's strategy is the right one - it does give one pause for thought especially in the longer run. Allowing WMA to become the dominant format due to shorter term concerns does seem to be an undesirable outcome to me, but then again I know very little about the business issues involved. I feel it's important to (neutrally) report these criticisms/concerns, provided neutrality is maintained. Graham 08:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary or wise to add a paragraph of tu quoque criticism on Microsoft, unless it's also appropriate to add a similar paragraph about Apple in, say, the Windows Media Player article. This is an article about the iPod, not Microsoft, and while it's appropriate to mention Microsoft's (deservedly, I'm sure we can all agree) controversial practices for purposes of providing context, I think any substantive discussions of it belong in one or more of the many Wikipedia articles that already criticize MS in detail, and referenced via a link. I hope this is a compromise we can all support. --Paul 20:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I was initially disturbed by Graham's insertion of the Microsoft material, but then I realized that much of the criticism of iPod, iTunes, etc., made comparisons with Microsoft. So I think it's fine to mention Microsoft, as long as it is for the purpose of describing the criticisms.  For example, link to some articles that make the Microsoft comparisons, and write some brief sentences explaining why Apple's supposed lock-in strategy bears resemblance, according to some critics, to past Microsoft practices.  The material you snipped should be introduced only if it can be modified in such a way.  --C S 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The edits people have made are good. I just tried some more edits to the section, moving some things around - anyone, feel free to hack it up if you're not satisfied. Paul, if you feel that any part of the article is POV, please feel free to edit it to bring it closer to NPOV, rather than trying to balance negative POV against positive POV. - Brian Kendig 17:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I replaced the out-of-place criticism of Microsoft with a link, for the reasons I explain above. Other than that the only big problem I have with the current version is that it misleadingly implies that the iPod simply doesn't play ball with Microsoft's DRM scheme, when in fact it won't play WMA files at all, with or without DRM. (I'm personally familiar with this because I'm the guy I described in my example that someone took out: I have a big library of unprotected WMA files that I use with my solid state player, which meant that if I wanted to get an iPod I'd have had to either convert or junk the whole thing.) That has nothing to do with iTunes or DRM, but it's still really annoying--and, I might add, entirely in keeping with the brilliant NIH strategy that has taken Apple from 20 percent of the PC market to 3 percent. I'm far from being the only person who complains about this, and it seems like there should be room for it under the "Criticism" rubric.


 * Other than that, I'm mostly satisfied with the compromise. --Paul 20:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be pointed out that the iPod doesn't play WMA files (protected or unprotected), but I do not like how you have edited that part. I think your edit makes it less clear that the reason you can't frequent other online music stores is that they mainly use DRM-protected WMA.  That was clearer before your edit.  Also, you have reintroduced your error of saying that those who want access to iTunes catalog must buy an iPod.  That is simply false, since you can burn the songs to a CD which will play in your car's CD player or whatnot.  And of course, you can play it on your computer(s).  --C S 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, good point. --Paul


 * While iPod doesn't play WMA itself, I think the windows version of iTunes will batch convert imported WMA files that the user has so that they can be played on an iPod (Correct me if this is wrong - I only use the Mac version). Obviously this isn't the same, but may be worth mentioning since I guess most people with an iPod will be using iTunes, and so this feature does offer something to those with a large WMA library. In the context of the "format wars" this approach is logical, if not exactly ideal. Graham 07:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. The windows version does convert WMA to AAC.  --C S 12:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, if AAC is an open standard and it's easy to create unprotected AAC files for the iPod, I'm curious to know why there are no players from Creative, Samsung, Archos, iRiver, or any of the other major manufacturers that can play plain-vanilla AAC or M4A files, DRM issues aside. I would think that this would be a niche that manufacturers would be more than happy to fill--especially the ones that make solid state players, which could easily be marketed as iPod companions. I'm not trying to imply anything or be critical; I'd genuinely like to know and can't find anything about it. If there's a reason, it should probably be mentioned either here or in a related article. --Paul


 * I don't know why you're so skeptical. A simple Google search should show you that AAC is an open standard and "it's easy to create unprotected AAC files for the iPod".  I know from personal experience you can easily, for example, convert between AAC and MP3 using iTunes. --C S 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there's a good reason for the omission of AAC from these other players, other than maybe not wanting to bother with the hassle of supporting many formats. The iPod does support quite a number of formats compared to the others (excepting of course the crucial WMA).  I notice Archos doesn't even want to support anything beyond MP3, WMA, and WAV.


 * There's really no reason for manufacturers to support anything beyond what the Archos does. After all, most people are happy with MP3, and like it or not, it has become a standard.  Also, as long as WMA is supported, they can frequent non-iTunes stores online.  The manufacturers that want to win the DRM battle, like Sony, will push their own formats, but only Apple or Microsoft can hope to win that battle. --C S 22:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * iPod dosnt support WMA because WMA==Microsoft, and apple dosnt do microsoft without a big reason. It supports AAC because AAC is Apple's baby and as a company mandate all their products support it.  The reason other MP3 players dont support AAC is because its Apple and only apple... its not a mandate from the masses to support it so why put it in?  racter 09:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)User:Ben Knauss


 * That's a very anti-Apple view of the iPod's lack of WMA support. I'm not sure why Apple decided against the WMA format, but to say that they chose against it because of Microsoft hatred is wrong, pure and simple. Apple and Microsoft, while intense competitors, desperately need each other. What's one of Microsoft's most profitable software groups? The Mac Business Unit that produces Office 2004 for OSX. What was Apple's big problem with software before 1997's MS Office for Mac? They lacked a big name office productivity suite and needed the MS Office suite. Apple and Microsoft is a symbiotic relationship, but they're a competitive one and competition breeds advancement, choice and innovation. As for why AAC should be supported, it's a newer format that takes advantage of newer audio technology that MP3 cannot. Go read the AAC wiki for details. Oh and Sony's PSP, Panasonic's D-Snap, most Symbian-based Nokias, and Linux-based Motorola phones (like the E815) play AAC files. AAC isn't a mandate from the masses, but neither was WMA before Microsoft refused to put MP3 ripping into early versions of Windows Media Player. A majority of the non-techies don't prefer WMA files, they simply don't realize that they can choose how to store their electronic music. The only standards in digital music are MP3 and WAV, everything else is optional.

--156.34.37.60 01:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Harmony
Is it worth it to point out that although Apple released the firmware upgrade that disabled Harmony AAC files on November 18 the story didn't break until December 14. 

iPod shuffle
I started to edit the entry to introduce the new iPod shuffle, but that's easier said than done, since it trickles through the rest of the page, since the iPod shuffle is such a different beast, and is actually more similar to non-iPod players (it's not hard-drive-based, it doesn't use a scroll wheel, it doesn't use Firewire, etc). I'm thinking it's different enough to put on it's own page instead instead of the big re-write this page needs to accomodate it (then again, such a rewrite may eventually be needed). Thoughts? -- Kaszeta 20:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It already has its own page: iPod shuffle. - Brian Kendig 01:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Models
Just separated out the distinct models (iPod, iPod mini, iPod U2 Special Edition, iPod photo and iPod shuffle) from the different iPod generations. It was getting confusing having them all mixed in. While I think the iPod U2 and the iPod photo are really just enhanced 4G iPods, the Apple site lists them as separate. -- 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

White Earbuds
I put in a section about the ipods included earphones, but Austin Hair thought it was "imbecilic, repetitive, and thoroughly pointless". The first one is just a child like insult. The one who is really imbecilic is the one who wrote the comment. And it's not pointless, because I feel the ipods earbuds are an important part of the iPods style. Saying the "the line's distinctive white", doesn't fully explain the significance of the earbuds. Reub2000 02:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard anything. And the user who objected has edited the article in over a week. So I'm adding it back in. Reub2000 11:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was the full text of the section:


 * All iPods come with white earphones. These earphones and their white cord are a symbol of the iPod. Even if the iPod is being caried in a pocket or bag by the listener, it can still be recognized by the white earphones. Many other manufac tures make white earphones or canal phones. While these work with other devices, they are intended to replace the iPods white earphones.

Judge for yourself. A.D.H. (t&m) 20:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Should we allow competing models in the "See Also" area?
I mean, competition is business related... and would be better if people linked to a general DAP article rather than other players (as articles should stay specific). What do you think? --Mrmiscellanious 23:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it's not so much competition but rather providing users with access to information on similar devices! All the other DAPs have similar links and no one has complained. --Madchester 00:10, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)


 * Let's put it this way, even pages for bands have links to other bands with similar styles and influences. Radiohead has links to Blur, Muse, Pink Floyd etc; Coldplay has links to Travis and Echo And The Bunnymen.  A lot of bands in the same genre have links to one another, even if they were "rivals" . --Madchester 05:05, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Size of article (32KB at writing)
The article is 32 KB to long, as of writing. I'm new, and I don't have much time to practice in the sandbox beacause of school, so here is what I will suggest for others to do. I hope that's alright with you.

Would removing the photos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod-internals.jpg, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/Image:Lightmatter_ipodvsmini.jpg, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod3g.jpg help? In my opinion they don't really add anything important to the article. Internal components could have cropped pictures with a scale imbedded in the photos to show their relative size. Including a scale might also make finding the absolute measurments of the components easier, althought I see no reason why detailed technical specifications should be included in the article.

Overall, I'm of the opinion that this site has had a lot of contributions form Apple fans. While I can understand a desire to showcase the technology, is this kind of stuff relevant?


 * What's the problem, dial-up? 32KB should take 16 seconds maximum on dial-up. Reub2000 05:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The warning about 32K only applies to the text - removing images makes no difference. The 32K limit is only warned about because some older browsers only allow up to 32K of text to be edited. Modern browsers shouldn't have this problem, so the solution is: use a modern browser. Many subjects require far more than 32K to do them justice - whether that is the case here can be argued, but frankly, using a browser with a 32K editing limit will severely limit your ability to contribute to wikipedia in general. Graham 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So a simple solution would be to remove the summeries of the iPod Mini, iPod Photo, and iPod suffle articles. No reason to put info in 2 places.


 * A simpler solution is to upgrade to a proper browser. Many, many articles need >32K of text. Graham 06:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The critcism section seems a bit one sided (favouring apple). Especially in places like "As the market leader, iPod has become the subject of criticism..." and "Consumers who want to download songs from the extensive iTunes music catalog to their digital audio players have no choice but to purchase an iPod" (emphasis mine)


 * It's ironic, but this kind of thing gets included by Apple critics. For example, if you check the history, the second sentence (before some changes) was included by a critic who wanted to emphasize the monopolistic appearance of the iTunes/iPod setup.  So this critic included the adjective "extensive" in order to make it seem like non-iPod users were truly being deprived of something; in other words, without emphasizing how "extensive" the iTunes catalog was, the criticism of a "lock-in" loses strength.


 * Your complaint of one-sidedness only goes to show that the regular editors of this page can never win. Things will always look one-sided no matter how much they bend over backwards to accomodate all views.  I suppose one must try nonetheless....

Vandalism
I saw that User:Grstain just reverted for vandalism on the article. Although it looks like I apparently vandalized the article, I actually removed vandalism on my revert there (the same vandalism that User:Grstain removed).

--MusicAndMath 21:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gapless Playback
"The iPod range is also unable to play gapless music (where one track runs into another without a noticeable "gap" or period of silence between them)."

I believe this has been addressed with the latest iTunes release, but I can't find a refrence on Apple's website (I'm sure I read it there.. something about gapless play for concept albums)... I'll keep looking... -- 24.36.103.70 02:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * iTunes itself supports gapless playback - and even a slight overlap between tracks which is quite cool... but AFAIK the iPod doesn't carry over this feature, possibly because of the processing power and/or memory requirements (2 tracks buffered and played at once).Graham 06:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * According to this, "Either way, this [iTunes] has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the iPod can or cannot do. The iPod does not run a little copy of iTunes inside of it; it's music playback engine is COMPLETELY different. Hope that clears it up. Thanks" Reub2000 06:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to imply that the iPod ran a version of iTunes, which would be absurd. The previous comment mentioned that it has "...been addressed in the latest version of iTunes..." as if that has any bearing on what the iPod can do. By "carrying over" the feature, I meant that the iPod doesn't at present reimplement this feature. Since this is totally obvious to me, I didn't even think there was any possibility of it being interpreted as if the iPod ran iTunes. Just goes to show... Graham 22:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of confusion generally about the difference between iTunes and iPod. Whether iTunes supports gapless playback or not is irrelevant - this article is about the iPod, and the iPod doesn't.

So-called Apple's usage of iPod
I find the lack of grammatical articles in parts of this article confusing. From what I can tell, this lack stems from the so-called Apple's usage of the term iPod.

I do not see how iPod refers to "the player and the technology" in Apple's website. iPod is a product line (and, IMHO, a pseudo-platform), and Apple's usage seems to work with this. There does not appear to be need for special treatment of the term iPod. This article can well use articles with the term to refer to a specific iPod device, etc. I believe that some copy-editting should be done to wipe away what (IMHO) is unnecessary unreadability due to overzealous application of "Apple's usage". Alternatively, the article can also be rewritten in such a way that iPod is used as an adjective, and therefore, any special treatment needed for the term when used otherwise may be ignored.

I am seeking comments on my interpretation of Apple's usage.

&mdash;UTSRelativity 16:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this.

Look at the article where it says "Apple designed iPod to work with the iTunes media library software...."

iTunes is referred to with grammatical articles here.

I think that we shouldn't bend to Apple's idea of how to refer to the iPod (and i am an avowed ipod fan), simply because wikipedia should adhere to a higher standard of the english language.

--Yoasif 17:26, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

I ought to add, if you read you'll notice that the term the iPod is used twice, once to refer to the LCD technology and one on the technology's feedback. In the context of a design context, Apple are also happy to use the article. The use of just iPod is in my opinion meant to imply that you have an iPod already, whom you give the name "iPod"&mdash;it's a marketing strategy not a nomenclature change, and that's how it should remain.

--BigBlueFish 12:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I just did a big edit relating to this. I also cleared up a large number of other grammatical errors, and reworded a lot of the Operation section to make it encyclopedic, not an iPod manual. I also standardised the use of disk sizes, with a space in between the number and the unit, such as 20 GB vs 20GB, using Apple's usage of the space as justification for the standard. I hope I haven't done anything too controversial. (I also deleted a dead image of a second-generation iPod mini... if anyone knows where it went they can put it back. --BigBlueFish 12:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Signal to Noise Ration
How much dB (quality of sound) are the ipods? It doesn't specify anywhere.

Apple does not specify, however, IIRC, the Third Gen had a measured SNR of 90db

Not sure if that is still the case

Key personnel?
Just looking at the list of "Key personnel". Tony Fadell, Jeff Robbin, Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive are all mentioned within the article text. Sanjeev Kumar, Danika Cleary and Stan Ng are not. If they are notable enough to be mentioned on the page, then surely someone can say something about them in the actual article text instead of just sticking them on the list at the end. If no-one pursues this, then I'll try to see what I can find on them some time soon. However if someone else knows who they are or what they did, then please add something about them wherever they belong within the text. AlistairMcMillan 00:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This whole section should just get removed. It's silly to have a list of "Key Personnel" for a product that's had hundreds of different people, at at least half a dozen companies, working on it over the years. And I'm not just saying that because my name isn't on the list :-) It's terribly incomplete, totally arbitrary, and lists at least one person that never worked on the project at all (to my knowledge, anyway). --Mbessey 00:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

¡Pod != iPod
I appreciate Ed's attempt to fix this, and I'm as frustrated by anyone by our case sensitivity problems, but this isn't the answer. This might look nice on screen (although I'm not convinced it's sufficiently portable for visitors with foreign browsers), but on a screen reader it's dreadful ("inverted exclamation point pod" or "POD", depending on how it's configured). I don't think it's fair to discriminate against disabled visitors for the sake of this typographic trick. It was better the way it was. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It actually didn't look nice on screen on the Safari browser on the Mac&mdash;which obviously a lot of people reading an Apple-related article will be using. TreyHarris

Looks terrible on Mozilla as well. In fact, it won't look good in any situation I can think of, unless there's some old terminal that I don't know of that can't display ¡, thus replacing it with i. I imagine it would look great on that. Just adding emphasis, don't do that again.

iPod Sales
Someone should update the sales section to reflect the potential downturn in sales for Q2 of 2005.

It looks like this didn't happen. Never mind. I wanted to comment on the just-added quarterly financial results... do people consider these necessary? Would a graph be more concise/informative? As a rather new Wikipedian I'm not very familiar with how this kind of data is usually presented - perhaps it should be floated on the right so at least it doesn't generate all that white space. --BigBlueFish 15:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism redux
I wanted to bring up a discussion I was having with a user to get more reactions; why are the criticisms of the iPod sequestered into an ugly, separate section? I understand the value of having criticism in an article, but what's the value of separating it into a separate section? I eliminated the Criticism header and split the criticisms into the appropriate sections, but another userr reverted it (for some quite valid issues tangential to my main point here.)

Rather than get into a revert war, I've made a new version in my userspace that takes the issues raised into account. What do people think of this removal of the Criticism header but retension of the criticism? A Man In Black 03:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, with a week of no comments, I'm just going to be bold and do it. A Man In Black 22:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer the separate section approach. It offers two main benefits: A)People looking for criticisms can easily find what they're looking for, which appeases opponents, and B)Other sections don't have to include criticism, which appeases proponents. It does seem traditional to have a separate section; Mozilla Firefox, for example, has a separate section (not to mentiona separate page.) Microsoft too, with a 'Controversy' section and Common criticisms of Microsoft. On the other hand, Wikipedia has no separate section, but it does have a separate page. Deltabeignet 19:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Effects of iPod on Society
I cut the following:


 * The iPod has been integrated into society and has become a recent phenomenon of [[new technology|

new media]]. As sales reach into the millions, our culture is changing dramatically. Individuals are becoming much more isolated where iPods are easily accesible, earphones can be plugged into ears for long hours of the day. The value of music, since hours of music can be drained into the auditory system and the brain, is decreasing. Since multiple musical pieces can be listened to, music as an artistic medium is turned into 'food' rather than used for understanding and contemplation and overall appreciation of the arts. As it is professed by Marshall McLuhan, any medium as the power to dramatically alter society - changing social and culture patterns. If anything, the iPod is changing art and music into something that is not very serious or meaningful. The ipod has become so popular that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has purchased one as it is extremely conveniant for her as she travels the UK and the world alot. She purchased her ipod mini (silver) from the apple shop in London via one of her aides who apparently asked for Royal discount, she is a great lover of music and has an enourmous cd collection.

Speculations and theories about how the iPod is dramatically changing culture and devaluing music are fine, but they really ought to be attributed to whoever thought of them. No sources were cited in the text or the edit summary, so I've removed the paragraph for the moment. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph on The Effects of iPod on Society is still rather biased. Can't somebody who knows a bit on this subject change it into a more balanced consideration of these effects?

Someone should still make an article about this. --Arbiteroftruth 28 June 2005 22:19 (UTC)


 * If someone writes this article, it shouldn't focus on the iPod. It's not like the iPod is any more harmful to society than other MP3 players. And I hope it goes without saying that the paragraph which was removed from this article is almost completely POV, and would be unusable in any article. I'm sure you can cite some Andy Rooney types who have written about how the iPod will disconnect everyone from reality and be the death of society. Personally I don't buy the theory. What's wrong with listening to "multiple musical pieces"? Many enthusiasts have huge collections and literally listen to music all day. This phenomenon predates the iPod and I doubt that you could say music enthusiasts don't appreciate what they listen to. Rhobite June 29, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

"Fifth Generation"?
I dispute the propriety of using the term "Fifth Generation" to describe the merger of the iPod and iPod photo lines. Nowhere on Apple's site or the prominent fan sites (iPodlounge, AppleInsider, etc) have I seen it referred to as such. I think it'd be wise to save the 5G designation for a true update of the line instead of this minor merger/refresh. raekwon

I agree. my minor update this morning merely mentioned the merge, but I don't consider these a new generation, and most of the other fan sites you metioned are equally as skeptical. Can we revert this back to the way it was?
 * Done. Please look over it and let me know what you think. I'm off to edit the IPod photo entry as well. raekwon 28 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)


 * I will point out that the iPod photo is in fact significantly different internally as compared to previous generation iPods (thinking of a page on iPodLinux's wiki to back this claim up). At the very least, this should be considered a different entity than the current 4G iPod, because it is. -- Grunt &#8200;&#1160;  June 29, 2005 00:40 (UTC)


 * From a consumer point of view they are the same product; they have exactly the same interface (save a photos menu option), and the same front dimensions. --BigBlueFish 20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is now official. Apple says that these new iPods are still fourth generation. raekwon 1 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
 * This article on the Apple website claims that they are fifth generation: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61688

iPod Commercials
It deserves a section here, instead in the iPod Shuffle section. The commercials are memorable and are significant in establishing iPod as a style product. It should stay here. --Arbiteroftruth 28 June 2005 22:22 (UTC)

The statement that the 2003 ads were the first is incorrect. I can think of at least one commercial that launched with the product itself in 2001. See http://web.archive.org/web/20011108014104/www.apple.com/hardware/ads/ (from Nov 8, 2001) --Ryank808 23 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

iPod picture
The picture of the iPod at the top of the page should probably be updated to have an iPod with a color screen.
 * As soon as we get our hands on one and can take a picture of it, we will. ;) -- Grunt &#8200;&#1160;  June 29, 2005 00:57 (UTC)
 * I'd take a picture of mine but it's scratched to hell.. anyone know if those iPod scratch removal kits really work? Rhobite June 29, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
 * Scratch removal kits work fine, but i've found that a nail buffer [sued type] works just as well.CoolFox 03:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Is this the pic we're looking for? Dshaffer 21:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dates
The article has surprisingly little dates. The "History" section includes none, and the section on succeeding types of iPods has little: for instance, it has the date of announcement of the first iPod but not the date of release, and no date for the second generation, etc. I think it's important for any article to have a clear-set historic perspective with things being dated. LeoDV 29 June 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Earbuds/devices
Before this gets out of hand, we should work something out about the 'Earphones' section. The implications contained in the mention of other devices that have white earbuds seemed POV to me, so I first noted that the Zen Micro was white except the cover (i.e. anything but white would just look silly). I then added the colors of other devices, figuring context never hurts. (This was in the course of one edit.) Boredzo then removed the colors of the mentioned devices, saying "they don't belong in a section called 'Earphones'". Figuring if the colors didn't belong, then neither did the devices, I removed that portion. Reub2000 then reverted, calling them "ipod earphone copycats", which is a fairly clear declaration of POV. The PSP may be another story, but the Micro and Touch are light enough to make white earphones the only attractive option; the implication of copying is POV and likely false. Frankly, the whole thing seems irrelevant in this article. Deltabeignet 30 June 2005 03:25 (UTC)


 * Earphone section is about earphones. If you want to talk about the actual devices, and how their copied from the iPod, then create an additional section, or place it in a section where it is on-topic.
 * Before the iPod, earbuds where universaly black. The devices listed, copied/influenced by the iPod, hence the reason why their relevent. Also, I don't belive my edit summary is covered under wikipedia's npov policy. Reub2000 30 June 2005 05:21 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the summary was against the rules, I'm saying it expresses bias. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, you haven't responded to my point; the Touch and Micro are not copying the iPod any more than a Civic copies a Model T. Sure, they use piston internal combustion engines, and yes, there is an impractical alternative, but so what? If you want, I can upload photos comparing a Micro with white earphones to one with black earphones. The implications of copying are POV. Deltabeignet 30 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)


 * I am a human, so therfore I am biased. I think Creative copies the iPod. IMO, there's nothing wrong at all with copying like that. Also, black earphones are perfectly practicle, and there are many of them, and the color has absoultly no effect on sound quality or anything else. However, my oppinions and bias are completly irrelevent.

The Zen Touch and Zen Micro digital music players and the PlayStation Portable incorporated white earbuds in their product-releases after the iPod became successful.


 * Notice that it's just mentioning the facts. They both came out after the iPod came out. Completly NPOV. Reub2000 1 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

"Just the facts" is the worst excuse in the book, and black earbuds still look weird on a white background... but I'll agree to leave it there. Deltabeignet 2 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

iTunes Music Store
There's too much mention of the iTunes Music store here. It is somewhat related to the iPod, but it is entirely too much information in an "ipod" article. There is already a good wiki for iTMS, and we are already linking to that wiki.

If I don't get much opposition in a day or two, I'll go ahead and make the current coverage of iTMS in this wiki to "stub" like status, as it should be, imo. --Yoasif 04:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

iPod flea
A user posted the satirical "iPod flea" advertisement, while it is iPod related; is it really best to have this in the article? It IS funny, but it isn't truely about the iPod, is it? CoolFox 03:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, and getting a mention by David Pogue doesn't make it notable, either. It has been deleted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Audio quality?
Isn't it widely held that the iPod's audio quality is not quite up to the standard of other competing players? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Robert Merkel 12:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, in fact the iPod has scored highly on audio quality in most tests (mainstream and audiophile). iPod shuffle in particular is outstanding. &mdash; David Remahl 03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as "outstanding". Most reviews prefer the quality of players from Creative Labs, and sometimes iRiver. The iPod lines are usually rated as average to decent. Deltabeignet 03:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it's not noted for its great sound quality or horrible sound quality. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that might not be quite right. I've been looking around, and found a few places that criticized the iPod's sound; a lack of bass response was high on the list. This link will suffice for now. Deltabeignet 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you supply some proper documentation, instead of some random guy's blog? Barefootguru 08:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, calm down. I was running late. Here's one that praises the iPod shuffle (which sucks, by the way) for having better quality than the regular iPod- "The older iPods, especially the Mini, have been rightfully criticized for being somewhat deficient in bass..." The gist is, average to decent sound besides crap bass. I've also found some complaints of the sound quality abruptly dying, but that's probably just an occasional defect. Deltabeignet 22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

60GB
Can one purchase a 60GB iPod without the "photo" stuff? That is to ask, what is the highest storage capacity of a regular iPod? --Tothebarricades 23:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * All iPods now have standard photo capability, and there are two sizes: 20GB for $299 (USD) or 60GB for $399. There is no 60GB iPod that does not have photo capabilities. Ramallite (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true that Apple does not sell a 60 GB iPod without a color screen, but you can build one, as long as you have a fourth gen iPod front and a 60 GB iPod back from an iPod photo. It's as easy as "plug and play" as long as you replace the headphone jack in the iPod back with one from a black and white fourth gen iPod, the only tool you need is a small screwdriver. An iPod repair page should be created, or is there one? I haven't checked recently. Rskjr 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism reopened (new topic)
I'm reopening the criticism section to address a different topic about iPod. There have been complaints from numerous users (myself included) that the shuffle function seems to "randomly" pick the same songs over and over again. Meaning that if you have an 10,000 songs in the hard drive, you seem to get to hear about hundreds of them and the rest are left untouched. Perhaps some bug in the software's random number generator. --Barfoos 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a complaint as old as CD players, and 99.9% of the time, you're imagining it. In the case of the iPod, another possibility is the fact that the shuffle feature isn't entirely random and isn't designed to be; it favors the songs you've rated highly, simply by weighing them more highly in the random selection process. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an old myth. At the beginning of 2005, a Newsweek reporter brought up the same question and went so far as to contact Steve Jobs over the perceived non-random shuffle feature, only to find out that the shuffle feature is completely random (unless with the iPod shuffle's Autofill feature, you've selected the option to choose higher rated songs more often). The real issue with the non-random myth is that listeners are causing their iPods to re-shuffle their shuffled playlist before they have listened to every song. Here's your link to the Newsweek article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6854309/site/newsweek/ or it's the third link when you google: ipod shuffle random.

"Criticisms" redux redux, redux
What I was afraid would happen when the Criticism section was "integrated" into the rest of the article has, indeed, happened: fanb-- ...er, enthusiasts have nibbled away at the critical bits stuck to other paragraphs and sections, little by little, until the article was once again the uncritical love letter that so many obviously want it to be. This is why it's important to have a section, or for some topics even a separate page, where criticisms can be aggregated, addressed, and rebutted if necessary. Criticism topics are warranted for anything that's the subject of significant criticism--here, here, here, here, here, here, and in countless places throughout Wikipedia--and the iPod shouldn't be exempt from this just because a lot of people really, really, really love it.

Everyone should feel free to add additional criticisms and counter-criticisms, but please don't delete the section again. --PHenry 15:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The FairPlay criticisms belong in the ITMS article not the iPod article. AlistairMcMillan 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The article does not address criticisms of FairPlay per se, but only of its role in helping to perpetuate the iPod/iTunes vertical monopoly. It's hard for me to see how that's not relevant here. --PHenry 18:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the heading should be "FairPlay criticism" then? BTW if you have a moment would you mind adding a criticism section to Microsoft PlaysForSure.  Maybe mention the words "vertical" and "monopoly" there too.  K. Thanks.  AlistairMcMillan 02:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you feel that strongly about it, you're certainly welcome to do it yourself. I'm looking forward to finding out how PlaysForSure, which doesn't lock anyone into anything and which Microsoft will happily license to anyone with the cash for it, could constitute a vertical monopoly--or even a good old-fashioned Microsoft-style horizontal monopoly, for that matter. Your apparent need to counter any criticism of Apple with an unrelated criticism of Microsoft is noted for the record, however. --PHenry 16:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And I can't help noticing that the only one pushing for a criticism of ITMS/Fairplay on every, even slightly, related page is a former employee of Microsoft. That aside, the iPod doesn't lock anyone into anything.  If you have an iPod and don't want to use the ITMS you don't have to.  AlistairMcMillan 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And when I was in high school, I worked at McDonald's. I don't feel beholden to them, either. What is it about those two little words, "vertical monopoly," that frighten you so much? --PHenry 15:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing that frightens me is that we seem to be letting someone who is exhibiting an obvious bias dictate the content of this page. AlistairMcMillan 16:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and that's certainly never happened before with this article. --PHenry 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like I walked in on bit of a bitter revert war, how nice. Here's my two cents: the issue here is the digital music, NOT the hardware player. iPod owners can purchase CDs and rip them to their iPod. ITMS users cannot do a similar thing the other way round. I think primarily the content should be in the ITMS article, but at the same time it's absurd not to mention it here at all. I suggest a sentence or two that links to the ITMS article is sufficiently relevant. Something that states that iPod is the only player to support Fairplay and is the only mainstream player to not support other Microsoft-style DRM-protected music, followed by a link to the ITMS article. --BigBlueFish 11:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The ITMS section already mentions that the iPod is the only digital audio player that can play Fairplay-protected music. We had a little bit about Microsoft's protected WMA format in the Software section, I've expanded on that a little.


 * Can you explain what you mean by "ITMS users cannot do a similar thing the other way around"? I'm not sure what you mean.  Once you burn ITMS music to a CD you are just as free to do whatever you want with it. AlistairMcMillan 14:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that iPod users can rip CDs is important, and could certainly be mentioned as a counter-criticism. But it's also important that iPod users who wish to buy and download digital music must do so through a single vendor, which happens to be owned by the company who makes the device. (After all, if that's not important, then iTunes isn't important enough to be mentioned in this article at all.) And as the iPod and iTunes are both coequal components of the iMonopoly, it's not clear to me why it shouldn't be mentioned in both articles. --PHenry 15:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. Let's put aside the fact that you are the only one pushing for this ITMS citicism.  Let's also put aside the fact that not every digital music store uses AAC or WMA.  How about a source.  "Some people say..."  Since we are supposed to you know... cite sources.  And I don't mean a press release from Microsoft or Real Network. AlistairMcMillan 16:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Would VirginMega and a Register commentator satisfy you, or would that just send you off searching for another reason to oppose any mention of this criticism? --PHenry 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you come up with other sources. Of course Apple's competitors think their are problems with whatever Apple is doing. Aren't there people who have written reviews of the iPod or disgruntled customers pointing out the "vertical monopoly" criticism?  If it is just Apple's competitors it doesn't really stand as a very credible criticism.  AlistairMcMillan 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here, here, here, here, here, here, and best of all, here. How else may I be of assistance to you today, sir? --PHenry 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

First link doesn't argue that Apple has a vertical monopoly, he is just simply arguing that they have to do whatever Microsoft Sony etc want or they'll lose market share. Amazon reviewer has never owned an iPod, so we'll skip his informed opinions. As for "the Health Ranger", this is the a*hole who says you can cure diabetes by drinking water... Audiologo hates iPods. A Fogcreek comment? I guess I should be happy you didn't list a Slashdot comment. I can't even parse what mrG is blathering about, perhaps you were meaning to point at the indiemusician quote itself. But again, he doesn't explain how Apple have a monopoly with the iPod. None of these people do, they just repeat the same FUD they've heard elsewhere from people like Fester.

Seriously explain how Apple has a monopoly here. If you want to buy a digital music player and buy music online, there are tons of different online music stores and tons of different music players, there is nothing forcing you to buy an iPod or use the ITMS. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Forgive me; I did not realize that any and all criticisms of the iPod have to pass muster with you, personally, before we are permitted to take note of their existence. (If nothing else, that will sure save a lot of time!) I suggest you contact the U.S. District Court in San Jose with this information immediately, as our courts' dockets are quite full and there's clearly no justification for wasting their time with this matter any further. Judge Ware's calendar clerk can be reached at (408) 535-5356. --PHenry 22:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, just to be clear. If you do buy an iPod, you are not locked into buying digital music only from ITMS. There are other online stores that sell music you can transfer onto your iPod. You just can't "directly" transfer music from stores that use Microsoft's copy protection format. AlistairMcMillan 20:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To Alastair's first paragraph after mine: good point. Given that, I think just a sentence hilighting the criticism is sufficient. It should probably also mention the term vertical monopoly. My point about it not working both ways is that you need the DRM music for it to be an issue - there are sources of music that are just as big as iTunes in terms of users that don't involve DRM. The criticism is of the DRM technology, which is distributed by the Music Store, which then has a limited number of players. Okay so you can burn it onto a CD and back but I'm pretty sure that's illegal. We should also consider the Jobs quote at the end of the ITMS section about making money&mdash;Apple's main source of income is from iPods... they're not so worried about new iPod owners buying ITMS tracks rather than another DRM site. --BigBlueFish 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: it is not illegal to burn and re-rip your ITMS music. AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see a vote coming on in the not-so-distant future. I think we ought to get the choice between the full criticisms section as it is now, a short reference to the criticisms section, or no reference whatsoever. Personally I think the last one is absurd and the first unnecessary, because it's very little about the design of the iPod. It's more to do with the actual songs, and what other players AREN'T allowed to play them --BigBlueFish 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The shorter version as a compromise would be fine with me, I guess--although that presupposes that the disputed content from here would in fact be merged into the iTunes article, as proposed; that article's almost as hagiographic as this one. --PHenry 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? ITMS and ITMS. Already covered. AlistairMcMillan 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes. I had been looking at the wrong tab, which had the iTunes article open. My mistake. --PHenry 19:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. If you think the ITMS article doesn't do justice to whatever cause you're fighting keep it in there. This is about how much it's covered here too. Alistair as the main campaigner against the current inclusion of the section what would you think about a brief reference like I suggested and PHenry would also be happy with? --BigBlueFish 18:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with adding something like you suggest. I would like it sourced though.  AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The only criticism of the iPod that wasn't already present in the article that you added was some vague, unsourced "sound quality" beefs (which could be cut and paste into any article about sound-making equipment from the phonograph to the iPod) and criticism of the iTunes Music Store that belongs in that article. I'm deleting the duplicate criticism (try searching for "gap" or "ogg" in the article before saying that the criticism has all been deleted by "fanboys" and try assuming good faith next time) and collapsing the criticism of ITMS into the ITMS header, with a merge tag to the ITMS article.
 * If you're unsatisfied with the lack of a critical tone in certain areas, edit them for a more-critical tone. Don't revert this section in, especially since it sequesters any critical POV into a little corner of the article, separate from the rest of the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask why it is so important to you that this article, among all the thousands of articles on Wikipedia, not have a criticism section? It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to assume you're acting in good faith here. You told me that you'd "rather see ugly Criticism sections gone whereever possible," yet as far as I can tell you've never tried to eliminate or integrate criticism sections on any page anywhere except this one, where you've deleted it at least four times after at least two people have tried to start it. As every editor except you seems to support--or at least tolerate--the existence of this section, I'm restoring it again. If you intend to continue pursuing this particular white whale, I suggest taking the matter directly to RFC. --PHenry 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting again, sorry. The sound quality criticism is completely unsourced, the gapless playback complaint is elsewhere, the Ogg Vorbiss and other formats complaint is elsewhere, and the battery criticism, which had been softened by editing (I went back and compared the version where I last removed the Criticism header, and it had indeed been softened), belongs under the battery header. In fact, all of that, save the battery criticism, all of this criticism was already present in the article before the Criticism header was replaced.
 * Criticism belongs in the article, you are correct. Please don't sequester the criticism to a potporri of criticisms sequestered to a section far removed from the topics those criticisms are relevant to.
 * I'm going to be doing this as two reverts. One eliminates some of the unsourced, vague criticism; please don't revert it in until you can source it. The second removes the Criticism header and redistributes the relevant criticism elsewhere, where it belongs.
 * You still haven't answered the specific criticism of a Criticism header; why not criticize the battery life and non-replaceable battery in the context of the battery? Why not note the lack of support for certain formats in the same place as the mention of what formats it does suppport? Why not talk about the vertical monopoly in the context of the ITMS (as the grand majority of iPod users use un-encumbered AAC or mp3 files, which don't enter into a monopoly of any kind)?
 * As for the more personal "Why haven't you done this elsewhere?" question, I got sidetracked on another project and the example articles had criticism that was in and of itself a separate topic (Wal-Mart's employee relations, for example, are an entirely critical subject). More info is on the reply on my talk page, and I'd be happy to continue the more personal discussion there instead of personalizing this one. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I asked you to please go to RFC instead of edit warring and you didn't, so I did. --PHenry 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I await a reply to my questions. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My issue with a special, broken-out criticism section is that some criticisms happen to be erronious due to various user's lack of knowledge. I.e., I updated the criticism on iPod audio recording because omitted the fact that the iPod can record at a much higher rate than the 8khz allowed by Griffin and Belkin mics if Podzilla is installed. Just because it's not easy to do, or voids the warranty, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 * I don't see what that has to do with breaking out or incorporating criticism. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that all criticism should be moved to one section. I've spent most of my iPod editing time on that battery life section. And it describes the situation pretty well. I disagree that it's an "uncritical love letter". I don't like at all the idea of the criticism being moved to one section because it would just make everything incoherent and hard to read. The article is long enough that people shouldn't be expected to read more than the section they're interested in.

As for whether to keep the iTunes store criticism, please see the new section I created below to vote on this. Also, let me note that I contributed to that bit of criticism, mainly because at that time, there was no iTunes store article and this page seemed the most appropriate for it. Now, that is no longer the case. --C S 19:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nano?
What about the new nano? Or iTunes phone?


 * iPod nano. Graham 05:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Or even IPod. AlistairMcMillan 05:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And the iTunes phone is here. AlistairMcMillan 05:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

iPod Nano section
Yes, the iPod Nano just came out yesterday, Sept 7th, 2005. Even though a new page for iPod nano has been created, it should also be updated on this main iPod page. Someone, pls do a good job on that!

Sorry! It has already been created. Good job people!!!

FM transmission?
One of the criticisms listed is the lack of "FM transmission" capability. When I first read that, I assumed it was an error, and changed it to "FM receiving". Since then, Rogerd changed it back to "FM transmission", and added some text indicating that FM transmission would be nice to make it work with car stereos. I still can't believe that people want iPods to be able to transmit FM signals. If you want music from your iPod to play through your car stereo, wouldn't it be much better to just connect a cable from the headphones jack of the iPod to a "line in" on the stereo? Sending FM signals from the iPod would require much more power from the iPod, would significantly decrease the audio quality received by the stereo, and might be in violation of FCC regulations. &mdash;Bkell 21:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people buy and use FM transmitters for their iPods. It's a good, inexpensive way to get iPod audio to come out of your car speakers, albeit at the expense of a little quality. Griffin's iTrip is powered by the iPod and doesn't drain the battery too much. It would be better to connect the iPod using a line in jack, but most car stereos don't have one. It is not an FCC violation since it transmits at a very low power level. I think it's illegal in the UK though. Qtac 00:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh. Whaddya know. Thanks. &mdash;Bkell 03:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is this a criticism though? I don't see Creative or Dell or iRiver offering this feature.


 * I tried an FM transmitter for my iPod, and my experience was the loss of more than just "a little quality". At times reception was acceptable, but those times didn't last for longer than a few seconds. If a car stereo doesn't have a line-in jack, and doesn't have CD-changer support, is there any other way to hack an iPod in so that it plays through the car speakers? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 207.233.79.173 (talk &bull; contribs) 18:04, January 5, 2006

Grammar problems in article
This article is littered with uses of the proper noun "iPod" without any article attached to it. I corrected one, thinking it must have been a stray typo, but there are so many that I can't possibly fix them all tonight. The usage "iPod is blah blah blah" or "Apple sells iPod" is absolutely incorrect in written English; it must be "An iPod is blah blah blah" or "Apple sells the iPod". 24.99.22.14 ~
 * The first section in this article ("Name") states that Apple invariably refers to (the) iPod without the use of the definite article. I wouldn't say that is is "absolutely incorrect" - singular proper nouns are frequently used without articles. I suppose this is to give it an air of familiarity, like a human name. I agree with you, it sounds odd, but I think if you changed it, someone would change it back due to Apple's policy. Canley 04:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please refer to &mdash;130.15.15.75 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on section on criticism of "vertical monopoly"
Ok, so I've noticed some childishness going on in the edit history and decided it's about time to just determine the consensus for those that seem unaware of it. I'm going to have to side with User: AlistairMcMillan by saying that the "vertical monopoly" criticism should be moved to the iTunes page.

Now as for this iTunes criticism that falls under the section of "iTunes integration", I see it mostly about iTunes. Now, User:Phenry disagrees and wants the same material in both articles. I don't get this; it seems obviously out of place. It's also obvious that it's come to the point where it's useless to argue about it. Let's just take a vote; I'm adding the names of people who have made their views clear...if I mistook any views, please correct, and I apologize.

iTunes criticism should be moved to iTunes music store:
 * User:C S
 * User:AlistairMcMillan
 * User:A Man In Black

Should be kept:
 * User:PHenry I believe I've already expressed my support for BigBlueFish's proposed compromise explained above. If indeed we are moving toward a compromise of some sort it seems counter-productive to re-polarize everything by requiring us to once again choose between two divergent views, so I decline to participate in this vote at this time. --PHenry 19:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I favor BigBlueFish/PHenry's compromise: the lengthy history and explanation of a vertical monopoly and comparison with competitors doesn't belong here, but a mention that the closed integration is controversial and a link to the appropriate article/section would be appropriate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I also believe that removal of all criticism is inappropriate, but find the current treatment too redundant. &mdash; [[Image:Ca-on-sb.gif|20px|Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada]] UTSRelativity (Talk)  20:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul, sorry, I missed your comments above in response to BigBlueFish. However, I find your usage of "compromise" interesting, because it indicates what a massive breakdown of communication has taken place.  I don't know anybody that was really against the idea of some short comments and a link to criticism elsewhere; perhaps Alistair can correct me on this.  In fact, it seems to me that was pretty much the idea of those arguing that criticism should be moved.  But as long as everyone seems agreed on that now, yes, I agree there is no point to this vote and it should be cancelled.
 * Would that that were true, but in fact every time anyone other than myself has addressed the vertical integration issue it's been to simply slice any and all mention of it out of this article, without making any effort to ensure that it was addressed elsewhere.     I'm hopeful that we can reach detente on this matter, but clearly a lot of people are going to have to change their behavior for that to happen. --PHenry 21:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, speaking only for myself, when the other editors said it was addressed elsewhere, I took their word for it. Now I see that it is not emphasized adequately in the other article.  But might I suggest you pitch in with that also?


 * Your comment on "every time..." is also something of an exaggeration; I take it you mean that with respect to the recent issue; earlier, when the section was first created, several people, including myself, pitched in and it has stayed in the article for quite a while. It's simply not fair to suggest there is some kind of movement against putting in criticism of iTMS as a vertical monopoly.  I can honestly believe that people do not feel this is appropriate and should be moved to the relevant article.  --C S 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, on all points. --PHenry


 * I agree with size of the present reference to the issue. I did, however, add a reference to the fact that the accusations implied a vertical monopoly. In response to PHenry's comments about the polarity of this talk section, could we have separate comments about whether the existing reference to the issue is expanded, kept or removed. I forsee it being kept, though no doubt people may offer improvements to its exact wording/presentation. --BigBlueFish 12:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My stake in this is merely stylistic; this article is too large, so overly specific info should be moved to specific articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Video iPod
Lets see one source that isn't based on rumours. BTW That image is faked, the image on the supposed iPod screen is Windows Mobile booting up. AlistairMcMillan 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The BBC reported today, not based on rumors, based on the fact they are a content provider. It is no longer rumor.Gateman1997 23:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed however the pic is a fake. The info however is still solid.Gateman1997 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Listen to the BBC story for yourself.  They are just reporting the rumour.  They say nothing about being a content provider.  And guess where I got this... from their website.  The story was not pulled.  AlistairMcMillan 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe this changes things: . Apple has now invited press to an event which most likely is a launch for something. Google News records 220 news articles about it in the last 24 hours. We can't ignore this altogether now. On the other hand, by the time we're done discussing what to write, October 12 will have come around and we'll find out for ourselves. --BigBlueFish 09:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until the announcement is made. I recall that there was a lot of speculation that the announcement that turned out to be the iPod mini rv 2 was supposed to be a video iPod, as well. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

5th Generation iPod
Is this really the 5th generation iPod? I would've thought it is still a 4th generation iPod that can play videos, there's no major design change that would necessitate it being called 5th gen? If it IS 5th gen, source? Smoothy 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe calling it the 5th gen is based on the significant changes to it's overall design. Much as the 4th gen was declared that based on the change from buttons to click wheel. The same rules apply here with new larger screen, changed face design, new color options, and video playback. It's no longer a 4th gen iPod.Gateman1997 22:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * According to apple this is 5G: "Even the new 60GB model is 10 percent thinner than the fourth-generation 20GB iPod. More features in less space? Sounds like iPod." 70.171.160.61 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah but however, they haven't explicity stated that it is indeed a 5th generation iPod, you have just shown that they have compared it to a 4th gen 20GB iPod, that's it. I would still rather have a proper explicit statement from Apple before it was called 5th gen.Smoothy 09:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not likely to get it. Apple has never explicitly stated that any of the iPods are are a particular generation. The Mac review and news sources (magazine, web, newspaper) are the sources of the "generational" titles. However they do apply. There are pretty definite differences in the base design of each "generation". Scroll Wheel (Gen 1), Touch Wheel (Gen 2), "Ultra Thin" rounded design (Gen 3), Click Wheel rounded design (Gen 4), Video Capable larger screen flat face (Gen 5). Gateman1997 22:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out Apple's tutorial where it's explicitly called a Fifth Generation iPod. Maguirer 02:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The 5th Generation iPod: A good new begining or a extremely sad news for people who bought ipod photo right before it releases? Man,this is just the saddest day of my entire life, I bought my ipod photo just 2 monthes ago, which I spent $399 on it, now this new video ipod released, I just felt really pissed off. I hope apple better give me some kind of solution!!!!! I hope I can get a trade in with some extra money under $30. Or I can get a firmware update so I can watch video with my ipod photo. Man, apple is evil!!!!!Any way, I demand a firmare update at least!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Steve Job is responsiable for this because he said:"Who would want to wach video on a such small screen") well, he screw me and many other photo ipod owners, I just want to tell him, please be honest next time, and stop MISS GUIDE your costomer. BY THE WAY, THE GUY ON THE BOTTOM WHO GAVE ME COMMENTS WAS SENT BY APPLE
 * While this has no place on Wikipedia, does your iPod still have the exact same functionality that you expected it to have when you purchased it? Yes?  Then I fail to see how Apple "is evil".  Would you prefer that they keep the same iPod model for years at a time, stifling innovation?  Of course not, it makes no sense.  Bbatsell 07:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was most certainly sent by Apple to contribute to Wikipedia for 10 months just so that I could pose as a regular editor in order to state the obvious in this precise moment. That theory makes complete sense.   --bbatsell  |  &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  05:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You've had your iPod over two months. What do you want them to do? You wouldn't say the same thing about a car would you?Gateman1997 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the 5th generation iPod. There are many changes including a new thinner iPod, new video feature, larger screen, and more. Also something to note, in the new 5th Generation iPod Apple introduces the 'Apple Click Wheel.' In previous generations Apple's click wheel came from a 3rd Party supplier, but is now made in-house. Also, This is not the new Video iPod or iPod Video, it is still an iPod that now supports Videos. Chsooners 20:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

2nd Generation iPod mini
Hi me again. I thought as I'm querying the term "5th generation", I'd query "2nd generation iPod mini". Has Apple explicity stated that the last iPod mini was indeed 2nd generation? There wasn't any major changes, just another size and the colours were slightly brightened. This surely doesn't warrant calling it "2nd generation"? Smoothy 10:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just seen this Apple Support article which explicity states the 4GB/6GB models are "2nd generation", so I stand corrected. Smoothy 11:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Digital camera iPod
Apple has gone through 5 generations of iPods so far and are hoping to release a 6th generation that includes a digital camera.
 * Is there any source for this claim? Given Apple's reluctance to pre-announce any new products or innovations, I very much doubt it. Should probably delete this sentence - see also the debate about generation numbers above. -- Canley 23:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article page
Are we allowed to write here? Why did they discontinue the mini, can you still buy it? Comment by User: 81.174.180.1, moved from article by MC MasterChef

3g ipod picture
can someone please put a 3g ipod picture up. the one on the page is not working - at least for me. thanks. --81.51.66.239 21:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For me it's working. This might have to do with the image server upgrade. Husky 23:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * well i've tried on mozilla, ie, and it's still not working - maybe its because i'm in france?--Muchosucko 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Poddy?
I've redirect the stub Pody here but, I'm not sure how or where would be best to include the information. Since this is a heavily edited article I thought letting the regular editors decide how/where it would or if it should go in. Here is the text from the redirected page:

''A person who owns an iPod.

''source: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1163175,00.html?=rss

Thanks. -JCarriker 04:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Portable open database?
The POD in iPod stands for "portable open database"? Anyone have a source on this or is this just an oft-repeated guess? AlistairMcMillan 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't even make sense. The iPod is primarily a music player, not a "database". --Zetawoof 05:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Xavier Naidoo edition?
While my German skills are a little rusty, I can't find any sign of this on the German Apple site, or the German online Apple Store. Can anyone confirm this is a real Apple product, or is it really just a re-packaged one by a third party? By comparison, the Harry Potter eiditon is listed prominently on the U.S. Apple Store. (Also, even if it is true, since the vast majority of English-speakers will never see this version, should it even be on the English Wikipedia?) Heck, even the German page shows the Harry Potter iPod, but not this one. Ehurtley 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The image looks weird - the logo is a different shade than the rest of the engraved text, as if it were printed (or Photoshopped!) on. I'm removing this section pending some confirmation that it's for real. --Zetawoof 05:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Evangelion Special Edition iPod? Someone should add this special edition iPod to the main article. http://lalabitmarket.channel.or.jp/ipod_eva.html


 * Again, is this an official Apple product, or just a custom-engraved and packaged iPod by a third party? If it's third-party, it doesn't belong on this page.  The U2 and Harry Potter iPods are custom made by Apple, with custom packaging by Apple.  They are official Apple products, with separate Apple product numbers than the 'normal' iPod.  If the Xavier Naidoo or Evangelion iPods have different APPLE part numbers, then I would consider them official Apple products.  But if they're just 'stock' iPods that some company bought then engraved on their own, they don't belong here.  (Heck, Apple produced celebrity 'signature' iPods a couple years ago, that were really just normal iPods with custom engraved 'signatures' of certain celebrities.  These were Apple-official products, but don't really warrant a separate 'edition' on here.  Heck, I'm of the mind that only the U2 iPod should be separate, because it is physically different (black,) than the 'normal' iPods.  Even the Harry Potter iPod is really just a stock iPod with custom engraving and a gift certificate.)  Ehurtley 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is a limited official release in Japan. If someone has any info, please back me up.

Key Combinations
I am thinking of creating a section on the iPod's Key Combinations (i.e. menu+pause to reset, hold menu for back light.) I might also add a section on Diagnostic mode. I was going to put it on the page, but then I noticed the "Longer than preferable" template, and thought it maybe should have it's own page. What do you think? - TheJapaneseGeek 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree; there should be more pages about the iPod... While there is a small section regarding its construction, there isn't a lot dealing with actually repairing the iPod or anything about diagnostic mode. I think you reset the iPod and then hold Back and Select at the same time? Rskjr 17:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea, how about a sub-page? Very interesting to readers like me. :) Since the article is too long there should be a short summary here and then a sub page. I think this discussion is "rotting" since it has already been almost two weeks after the last discussion was here. --Terence Ong Talk 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Manufacture
Suggest inclusion: What suppliers make the iPod, and where?
 * I think its quite hard to get those info as Apple will never reveal all this to the public. --Terence Ong Talk 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not apple.. but other information sites I think yes --ReDM0oN - (scrivimi)  07:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Free iPods
Should this section be here - the original link contained a referrer ID, presumably to help whowever initially entered the link to qualify. I removed this, but is the section appropriate?--C Hawke 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's totally inappropriate for the article to include "free ipod" links. Readers who want to learn about the program can visit Gratis Internet. Referral links are never allowed on Wikipedia. Rhobite 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * cool, next time I will be braver and remove the entire section if I see similar.--C Hawke 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit was clearly of a spam nature, which is why I removed it. If you see something that blatant an advertisement, feel free to delete it. You should always consider if there is something salvageable, but in this case I didn't think the subject was notable enough to warrant a whole free iPod section. --C S (Talk) 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Talk:IPod — IPod → Apple iPod – All 'iPods' refer to the 'Apple iPod' (even rebranded HP ones are still from Apple), and this also overcomes MediaWiki's name limitations of a leading lowercase letter. The same was done for Apple iMac The Land of Smeg 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support The Land of Smeg 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Naming conventions (common names). Articles should be named after the most common name for the subject. IMac was only moved recently, and I disgaree with that move too. I'm glad you're now following the guidelines on WP:RM, Smeg. Rhobite 07:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Rhobite and also because it is never called "Apple iPod" on the official site. Mushroom 08:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rhobite. btm talk 08:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, all iPods are Apple iPods. It's an un-needed addition to the name. Also iPod is the more common name then "Apple iPod".Gateman1997 08:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose in agreement w/ above opposition. Sorry.  raekwon 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. And iMac should never have been moved either. AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See above. Itamae 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. People call it the 'iPod' not 'Apple iPod', not to mention I think Apple even insists on usage being just 'iPod'.  I don't find the software limitation a compelling reason.  I think we can avoid a needless redirect by keeping the page at 'iPod'; I'm sure most people would just type 'iPod'.  --C S (Talk) 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. And please, archive this talk page some time soon... &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 09:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

DVDs
Is there any way to import DVDs into the IPod Video? Kind of like burning it?


 * Ripping? Yes, there is. Mark1 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

new commercial song?
Yeah it's Flathead by the Fratellis--Snailey! 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's called "flathead" look it up on the iTunes music store --Snailey! 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

anybody know the name of it the commercial is th 1 with iPod + iTunes and the apple sign at the end. Dappled Sage 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

not off the top of my head, but i think i do know what you're talking about. Mightyeldude 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

reference template not recommended
For article size reasons, I recommend not using the template for the references. I think all references should just use the normal method with regular wiki syntax, which gives less text. --IE 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to fix it, nobody's stopping you.--HereToHelp 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't we supposed to use templates? I was under the general impression that people should use the cite templates in general, especially since the inclusion of info element by element allows the templates to be updated quickly if need be. I've been converting references to the cite format since it's on the to-do list. Nihiltres 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with using the templates, but the problem is that this article is still a little too long, in my opinion. I often see the article size warning when editing. Using the regular wiki syntax for refs is a kind of cheap way of reducing the article size. If there's no objections, I would like to remove that task on the to-do list.--IE 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a horrible idea. I'd rather have an article that's too long than not using . Is there a policy somewhere, one way or the other? --Steven Fisher 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no strict policy on which style of referencing should be used. I think this article should use the Harvard format (see Harvard referencing policy) which can be done with normal wiki syntax.--IE 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no strict policy saying they must be used, but cite exists to make the references section look better organized, instead of it being a bunch of links. Using cite doesn't make the article that much longer. --Core desat  02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to retract my above statement. I think we need to continue using cite to keep the many, many references organized.--HereToHelp 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but article size is important. Effort should be made to keep the article size down. Also, the references will be organised no matter which referencing format is used - as long as one consistent format is adopted. And it will make a significant difference to article text size when the Harvard format is used, because this article has about 70 references.--IE 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to (officially, this doesn't count) suggest splitting the article sometime, into iPod (player) and iPod (brand) or some such setup (one would stay here). That would reduce the article size tremendously, without killing any cite format templates, which are very useful. Nihiltres 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The individual iPod model articles already provide a split for this article. There's nothing more that can be split from this article. Also, this article splitting idea has been discussed before: see Talk:IPod models and software and look in the archives of this talk page too. Also, the Harvard format of referencing is just as useful as the cite format templates.--IE 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to put the information in the body of the article, rather than use the format? In my opinion, that looks cluttered, is distracting, and doesn't really work for the large amounts of internet sources used here. I also think that imbedded links ([www.apple.com]) are bad, since they are not descriptive and are larger than footnotes. However, if you only mean how the organization of the information in the footnotes themselves, and will leave the footnote system as a whole in place, I will retract my retraction.--HereToHelp 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We will still use the format, so that the refs are listed at the bottom of the article. They won't be embedded links. Here's an example. This:

is converted into:

The first format uses 240 characters. The 2nd format uses 176. Also, the dates within the refs shouldn't be wiki-linked. So for example, 17 October 2006 should not be written as 17 October 2006 .--IE 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, just wanted to make sure. Go ahead and change it. What else needs to be fixed up before an FAC nom?HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things that need doing before this article can be a FAC.--IE 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like? (For instance, why do you insist that the infobox needs to be removed?)--HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, when I make suggestions for article improvement, they often receive disagreement and lack of support. I often end up spending lots of time debating the merits of my suggestions.--IE 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thrown them out there.--HereToHelp 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sometimes there's a knee-jerk reaction to constructive criticism. But hopefully people will realize that these suggestions need to be taken seriously if this article will ever be a Featured Article. This article is much improved from when I last really perused it a few years ago. It has a chance now, in my opinion, to make it to FA, whereas before, the candidacy was basically shot down. If you have suggestions, IE, please make them. People are listening. --C S (Talk) 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: dates... what makes you say this? According to this all dates should be wiki-linked (so user date preferences work correctly).  The article size is important, but I think we should worry about cutting down the text of the article rather than useful formatting.  I think the same argument applies for the cite templates.  They allow the formatting of references to be updated across the wiki.  If they are more functional and easier to use than plain wikitext, why shouldn't they be used? Paul C/T+ 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All dates can be wiki-linked but only in the article body, and not in the references section - where there is no need to link dates. In the refs section, the date linking provides no benefit to the user, and just creates a cluttering of blue links. Also, regarding the templates, this page says that "The use of citation templates is not required". This means that it's optional and can be avoided temporarily if the article is too big.--IE 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't follow what I was saying about wiki-linking full dates. It is so users' date preferences are correctly followed.  As a result ANY date should be wiki-linked so this is correct.  Otherwise the dates will be in different formats throughout the article.  Paul C/T+ 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather just ignore the users' date preference requirement, simply because I don't like it when sentences looked over-linked. But if you insist on linking every date (within article body and within statements), then I'll just leave it.--IE 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there are other high quality articles, like Global warming, which do not even use the formatting nor the templates. They use inline citations instead and this is considered OK, because there are a choice of formats to use.--IE 09:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So why not pick the one that works the best? This article has a lot of footnotes but virtually no book sources (those that apply to the article as a whole; I'm sure there are some in the footnotes for individual points). Most of the sources are links, and the footnotes work very well with that. However, the format of the cite template isn't going to change any time soon. There are also multiple ways to list references; all are acceptable so long as the article is internally consistent. Which it will be. (*nudge nudge*)--HereToHelp 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is that the article is too long, then the solution is to trim the content. Removing information from the citations is not a good solution. AlistairMcMillan 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Developer Program
75.208.152.191 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Information needed on how to develop content and applications or the ipod and how to make it available through the Apple vending machine, iTunes.

Agreed, this is an important topic with little information available. There are now games for the iPod but no information on how to develop them. 75.210.56.239 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about the 1984 (television commercial)
Well, the new remake with the iPod on it. But it belongs here instead, probably due to accessories. How can you attach an iPod to your clothes (specifically, at the waist) like that? No really. I mean, I never saw an iPod with a clip or something on the back in real life. --68.145.103.189 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) --Addict 2006 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Either a third party case or a 2G iPod Shuffle, which has a built in clip.--HereToHelp


 * My iPod 3G came with an Apple-branded clip. --Steven Fisher 22:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have had mine medically inserted into my waist. It has the added bonus that I never lose it.  The down side is trying to get the USB cable to reach, especially when I have to use the toilet.       :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davedowd (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Recording
The article is missing any information regarding recording with iPod. It seems that the hardware of the current iPods is capable of recording up to 24 bits, 96 kHz. Is there any iPod expert willing to include the information? --pabouk 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA On Hold
This article has been put on hold due to the following WP:MOS violations. Please feel free to contact me when these problems are addressed. Tarret 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2&amp;nbsp;G .
 * Per WP:MSH, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
 * Apparently they were, seeing the next post...but I can't find any headings that repeat the title, and 2G stands for "second generation" and is supposed to be written that way.--HereToHelp 13:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed
Here are some semi-automated suggestions to bring the article to FA-class.
 * The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2&amp;nbsp;G . Special case; this is not applicable.
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.
 * The best way to remedy this would be to combine all the sections that are only a paragraph or so. Any ideas?--HereToHelp 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program  (A) (British: programme).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
 * Should be easy to fix; just need to find them all.--HereToHelp 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.
 * There's only two of these, so that should be easy to fix, too.--HereToHelp 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

Patent Dispute Section
"...a Hong Kong-based IP portfolio company called Pat-rights filed a suit claiming that Apple's FairPlay technology breached a patent[38] issued to inventor Ho Keung Tse. The latter case also includes the online music stores of Sony, RealNetworks, Napster, and Musicmatch as defendants" -

This case doesnt actually refer to the ipod. It was agaisnt the itunes music store regarding the FairPlay files it sells. Is this relevant to ipod? I think this section should only really contain the patent disputes about the ipod product and not general cases agaisnt apple and the itunes music store which can obviously go on the itunes store page. --Neon white 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Go move it, then.--HereToHelp 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New image at the top
I plan to replace the image at the top of this article with a different one that has all 3 models (video, nano, shuffle) on one image. I'm unable to notify the original image author, since the image is on wikimedia commons. --IE 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a moment...did you take that image yourself or edit it together from other images? Because I went ahead and uploaded it to the Commons (repeated "Image:" in the title, whoops), and the Wikipedia image will be subsequently be deleted in a week. Frankly, that's a great image (the fading of the iPods at the bottom like Apple does it is a very nice touch). It might be nice to get the iPod video out of the dock, and the perspective on the nano is kinda awkward, but considering Apple didn't make it, it looks great.--HereToHelp 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I took the photos of each model individually, then combined into 1 image. So it is a 100% copyright-free image. Regarding use of the dock: The video iPods can't stand up without the dock.--IE 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. I found the iPod Shuffle photo particularly good; I cropped it and uploaded it . --HereToHelp 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the infobox
Why would we want to lose the infobox about the ipod? see edit here. Does this warrant a revert? --Oscarthecat 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I don't think it suits this article, and it's too vague in certain areas. It also has several errors: for example the first line said "Manufacturer: Apple". I thought Foxconn was the manufacturer? Does Apple do any manufacturing? It also says "System storage: 1GB falsh memory, but the image shows a hard-drive based ipod. I think the opening paragraph and the various sections give a better summary/explanation for the stuff that was in the infobox. --IE 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see this comment here, added by User:Kungming2. --IE 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In general I don't like infoboxes. They clutter up the article, often providing useless, redundant information. I believe that was the case here. If people insist on keeping it, then I guess we must, but personally I think the article looks better without it. For example, note that half the info in the box is already contained in the opening sentence of the article. The other info in the box is kind of vague as it combines info across all models. --C S (Talk) 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Industry impact section
This article needs a section on industry impact. I've found a few references of various things. I'll put down a few notes here, just to get a few opinions/comments and perhaps some expansion, before adding to the main article. The article needs some shortening before this stuff goes in though.--IE 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards won: iPod award - Jonathan Ive - engineering excellence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4605881.stm

PCWorld - most innovative audio product of 2006 http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,123942-page,2-c,electronics/article.html

PCWorld - 100 best computer products of 2006. 36=iPod video. http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/05/31/top.100.products.announced/

4=iPod nano (it has "altered the landscape for portable audio players") Industries are adjusting their products to work better (be compatible) with iPod and AAC audio format. eg. mobile phones, Zune. Micorosoft went a step further and copied the same closed DRM model used by iPod+ iTunes despite saying that people want "choice" with their Plays-For-Sure model.
 * http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125706-page,5-c,technology/article.html
 * http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125706-page,2-c,technology/article.html

Copy protection being adjusted: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040720124549.shtml

Podcasting.

Shops refer to all MP3 players as "iPods", just like how "Walkman" used to refer to all portable cassette players.

Split
There's a mention in one of the other talk sections about splitting this article for the player vs. the brand. Even disregarding the size of the article, I think this would be a good idea. There's currently an article for iPod shuffle, iPod nano and iPod mini. Dealing with the main iPod's details in an article that links to different articles for the Shuffle, Nano and Mini details is simply confusing. --Steven Fisher 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)