Talk:IPod/Archive 3

History Inaccuracies
The history section is pretty inaccurate according to this Wired Article: page 1, page 2. I've changed the article to reflect the history from Wired and another article from LEM. Tomhormby 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I rewrote most of the section and added footnotes. Tomhormby 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I updated this area to better reflect what actually happened. The Wired article is greatly incorrect. For certain reasons, Benjamin Knauss decided to tell a story other than what actually happened. The reasons for this are his own, but likely were to improve his standing so he could take financial advantage of the iPod success (note the article says he was contracting at Microsoft). PortalPlayer did not have hard drive reference designs the size of a cigarette pack. PortalPlayer had no contact with Toshiba, who were the makers of the only hard drives small enough to make a player the size of the iPod, which was itself still larger than a cigarette pack. If you went to PortalPlayer's offices back then, you would see (and hear) in the lobby their working reference design, which was the size of a standard home "rack style" CD player. Apple did not slightly refine PortalPlayer's software design, they greatly redesigned it. Apple used PortalPlayer's OS and audio decode system (with many modifications) and put Pixo UI and Apple song management code on top of it. Apple did not use Pixo's OS, as Pixo doesn't make an OS. Pixo was a UI toolkit that could run on multiple OSes. At Apple's request, Pixo adapted their toolkit in short order to run on the OS that PortalPlayer had selected. In the initial product, the amount of code was about 1/3rd PortalPlayer, 1/3rd Pixo and 1/3rd Apple-written.Bollinger 07:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The iTunes date seems to be wrong. The History section says: "Apple accepted and development of the iPod began in February 2001, one month after iTunes was released." [that's saying iTunes was released in Jan '01]... and then in the iTunes Music Store section: "It was introduced on April 28, 2003"
 * iTunes was released as a program in January 2001, but at that point there was no store component for buying songs; it was "just" a software jukebox for storing and playing music. The iTunes Music Store is a separate feature of the iTunes program, and it was this feature that was first introduced in 2003. BJ Nemeth 04:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

5Gen headphone jack
Article says: In addition, the earphone plug is smaller.Does this mean it needs non-standard cables to hook to a stereo system? If not, why is this affirmation relevant? 201.128.116.10 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, it's the same size. It is, however, missing the port fot the add-on remote. I'll update it.--Erciesielski 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturing
I noticed that "Worker Exploitation" and "Manufacturing" say almost the exact same thing, perhaps one should be deleted. also, maybe it's just me, but i think the "manufacturing" version sounds quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samguana (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 July 2006

iPod 30GB?
On ipods, it always says the memory on the back of them. But the memory listed is not true. For a video 30GB ipod, the actual size is 27.8GB.Due to this, video ipods can't hold 7500 songs and 75 hours of videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayonkid1 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 March 2006
 * As with all storage devices, GB means one billion bytes. A 30GB iPod can store 30 billion bytes. It will hold 7500 4 minute songs at 128 kbit/s. Rhobite 20:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * sory Rhobite, but it's true, a 30GB iPod only has 27.8GB. does anyone know how this loophole works? i think it's important for the article. Samguana
 * See Gigabyte for the reasoning here. To quote: "Although most hard disk manufacturers' definition of GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes (only computer memory has a natural inclination towards units that are powers of 2), most computer operating systems use the 1,073,741,824 byte definition. This distinction can cause confusion."  It's definitely not just an Apple quirk; most hard drives are labelled in this way.  - Pronoiac 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The software that makes the device run has to be stored somewhere. That is where that memory difference comes from.  On computers, all the files for the OS is stored on the hard drive.  It is the same with the iPod.--jt4mtb 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the firmware takes up some space, but not 2.2GB! Did you read Pronoiac's explanation?--NPswimdude500 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is still unclear (Pronoiac's response might go over some heads), all hard drives are measured this way, whether they are in computers (Macs or PCs) or consumer products (iPod or Zune). All hard drives sold as "30 GB" will only hold 27.95 GB. (You can check the math using Pronoiac's numbers above.) This is all industry-standard usage, and should not be in the iPod article, because it is not iPod specific. BJ Nemeth 09:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

iPod line-up
I've got it! Why don't we simply replace the entire "Models" section with a simple table that matches Apple Macintosh. It would fix the article size problem, and several other problems with the article such as referencing, language and POV. — Wackymacs 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you mock up what that would look like here before you make any major changes to the article? It sounds like a good idea, but I think that having a new separate article for the regular iPod family (iPod line? iPod models?), like iPod nano and iPod shuffle would be a good place to put the information we would be cutting... or maybe just one large iPod models article with iPod nano, shuffle, photo, and mini redirecting to their respective places in that article.  The table is a great idea to get this article's size down significantly... Paul C/T+ 20:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a Comparison of iPod models article would be needed as a companion to the Table. — Wackymacs 11:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to the table & the text that's already there? - Pronoiac 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! There used to be a lot of comparitive information here. Highly useful. While I can go to apple.com to look up specifics on the current models, they don't show the tech specs for the discontinued models. Call it "Comparison of iPod models" or "Evolution of iPod models." ---Ransom [--208.25.0.2 23:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]

initial mockup

 * OK...here's the mockup, tell me if you like it - of course for the real thing, the 1, 2, 3 and 4th Generation ipods and the ipod mini will be included too. and the descriptions will be filled in. — Wackymacs

I think this table thing is a pretty good idea. And perhaps we could have an iPod family article that goes into all the details and does the all the comparisons and stuff. --IE 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The problem of this article has always been that it can't quite make up its mind whether it's about the iPod brand or the mainline iPod itself, and the table would alleviate that problem somewhat (a subarticle of some kind should be created then, though). -- grm_wnr Esc  19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Would it make more sense to move the current article to iPod brand and make the iPod article about that specific line? Paul C/T+ 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could use this style of table for the accesories section? This would allow more accessories to be shown and described, but with less text. --IE 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

second mockup

 * I thought putting the models at top & the features at the side would be better. Here's an attempt:

... This might simplify discussing other differences between the different versions - Rockbox, CPU, color vs. B&W display, etc. I just wanted USB vs. Firewire but I'm sure a case could be made for others. A picture per, uh, category (ipod, Mini, Shuffle, Nano) might be enough. The limited edition items are currently left out. Thoughts? - Pronoiac 07:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Supplementary text
The first generation iPods were Mac compatible only. Apple later added limited Windows support to the 2nd and 3rd generation. From July 2004 and onwards, every iPod was made fully compatibile with either Mac or Windows.
 * Apple has evolved the iPod line...
 * Each new release generally has more features whilst being smaller/lighter than previous...
 * Notable changes: touch sensitive wheel, color screen, anti-aliased text, video player, flash memory
 * Special edition models
 * They get cheaper

Comments

 * I like this one better than the one I made. Thanks for expanding it. I think it should be posted to replace the "Models" section. — Wackymacs 20:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh...So when is this going to be finished and added to replace the "Models" section? — Wackymacs 09:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the first version better as any descriptive text is going to look silly if the table is oriented the other way. It would also make adding information to the table quite complicated and people would have to count lines and stuff... It looks pretty nice tho. Paul C/T+ 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather a table supplement the text, not replace or contain the text; the Harry Potter, U2, & Madonna iPods have different stories, not tech specs.

I wanted to double check the USB & FireWire support of the different generations (specifically, 3G & 4G & Mini) before moving it into the article - the article was unclear, so I was going to ask at the Apple Store or check the Wayback Machine.

I want to split this table in two, for the iPod proper & then the Mini, Nano, & Shuffle; this would fit on, say, iPod family. Also I wanted a higher contrast picture of the Shuffle. (And columns of the same width, and rows for weight & dimensions... And small text instead of weird linebreaks...)

Shoutouts to User:IE for some major work! - Pronoiac 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've visited the Genius Bar at the SF Apple Store, & got some extra details on the Firewire to USB transition. I also looked at [the tech specs] to the latest iPod. There are tons of items we could put in for comparison, the pixel dimensions of the screens, the exact dimensions & weights of the models - & I feel like not making this comprehensive. Or having a comprehensive table under another article but not here.

I've moved stuff around. I'm thinking about moving rows out to text, like, say:

USB vs. Firewire

 * Firewire only: iPod 1G, 2G
 * Firewire & USB (USB only for syncing): iPod 3G, Mini 1G & 2G
 * Firewire & USB: iPod 4G & Photo
 * Firewire & USB (Firewire only for charging): iPod 5G, Nano
 * USB only: Shuffle

Windows compatibility
Um, everything shipped since July 2004 works on Mac & Windows out of the box. I'm not sure this feature merits a mention either way.

Skimming what's in the main article: Geez, I'm not sure what's worth keeping around. I need to think about this.

Thoughts? - Pronoiac 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The compatibility row should be removed from the table. It's not very insightful.
 * The battery life row should be removed - it's too controversial. And after the Capacity row, there could be a 'Dimensons and Weight' row.


 * Also, we should try to get better product photos. Need more consistency. A good example is Apple Macintosh. Notice how each photo is taken from the same overhead angle with a 3-quarter view - we could do this for the iPod photos. I recommened these rules:


 * iPod should be placed on a table with a slight diagonal angle.
 * Use a dark color (eg. brown) for the background
 * Take the photo from overhead, not too close
 * Earphones should be plugged in with the cable neatly wrapped, and the earpieces on the right


 * This is similar to the 4G photo, but with less diagonal angle, and ensure that the edges are not cut out of the picture. Some photos (like 3G and 1G mini) should show the dock connector, but not face on. Use a slight angle, and take from slightly overhead. People could upload their images and show them here.--IE 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Windows vs. Mac paragraph works for me.

The dimensions, battery lives, & probably weight were sometimes different for different capacities of the same generation. These details would be fine on a comprehensive table, on a separate page, so it doesn't dominate then try to assimilate this article. :)

As for the photos: Um, this strikes me as overkill. (This is also something I can't directly do.) Check the original Shuffle thumbnail:   A bit of contrast - a negative halo or something - will have to be edited into the photos to actually see what's there. ... This is more ambitious than I am right now. - Pronoiac 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

third table
Here is a (very poor) example of what I mean. Of course, it should follow the article's current Toc: Would it be possible to split the box marked "(This Box)" into several rows based on each model? 30/60 for the 5g? Paul C/T+ 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6.2 iPod
 * 6.2.1 1st generation
 * 6.2.2 2nd generation
 * 6.2.2.1 Limited Edition iPods
 * 6.2.3 3rd generation
 * 6.2.4 4th generation
 * 6.2.4.1 iPod photo/iPod with color display
 * 6.2.4.2 iPod U2 Special Edition
 * 6.2.4.3 Harry Potter Collector's iPod (30 GB)
 * 6.2.5 5th generation
 * 6.3 iPod mini
 * 6.3.1 1st generation mini
 * 6.3.2 2nd generation mini
 * 6.4 iPod shuffle
 * 6.5 iPod nano


 * I don't think you can split it; you'd have to insert a new row, mostly blank, & have everything else on the row span two rows (see what IE did on the second mockup to see how). That would be really ugly to edit, although it would work for noting the different dimensions or running time of the different models - is that what you were thinking about?  - Pronoiac 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Activity on this has died again..... – Wackymacs 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

timing/completion
I came up with the idea of this table concept to replace the complex "Models" section, but it is other users who have actually seemed to try different things with the table and put content in. I really like the second mockup, it seems completed, when is it going up on the article page to replace the Models section? — Wackymacs 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

iPod Party
I have moved this to here for now as the current text is rubbish, and I'm not sure it should be included. Hamish (Talk) 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the act when a host or hostess sends invitations for a underground iPod party to local iPod owners (preferably 5th Generation 60 Gigabyte owners) to come over to the host's house and unload their music collection from theie iPod using a 3rd party application to a large hard drive computer, or an external hard drive. Once everyone has uploaded theie music to the PC or HDD, everyone at the party takes turns browsing through all the music on the hard drive, and then they plug their iPod in and take the music they want, or just upload the whole collection of uploaded music to increase their collection. Most of these parties contain rules such as, Before you attend, check your music collection for any doubles such as FatBoy Slim and Fat Boy Slim (notice the space between Fat Boy in the second spelling). Another rule is to check for doubles with mispellings such as Beasty Boys & Beastie Boys. After the party, the music is ussaly deleted from the hard drive to save space, but still is contained on each iPod that uploaded.

Hot iPod News
Hello Jamie. I today added the link to Hot iPod News (www.hotipodnews.com) to the wikipedia. This is not my own site. I do not own a site. I DO own an iPod, (4GB Nano), and think that this site is very well done and have it in my del.icio.us bookmarks. The site has been ranked #1 on MacRank toplist for almost 2 years straight now. I benefit none from the inclusion (or not)of this site, so I do not see it as "spam", however if you choose to see it as such and decide to keep it removed, that is your perogative. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.74.64 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 July 2006


 * It's a @#$%ing rumour mill. Not at all the sort of thing that should be linked to from a Wikipedia article. &mdash; NRen2k5 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Use on Airplanes
I've seen a lot of criticism on many forums about how the iPods that use Mini Hard drives rather than Flash memory do not work even in pressurized airplane cabins well below the maximum specs of 10000ft. Here are some examples from a quick search on the apple forum alone.      Does anyone think this is worth mentioning in the article? A simple google search turns up many more topics similar to this. 71.235.83.132 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any "reliable" sources? Articles from newspapers or news sites for example?  Postings to discussion forums are not reliable sources.  Please see WP:VERIFY.  AlistairMcMillan 17:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While your comment speaks about using an iPod on an airplane under 10,000 feet, all of the discussion links you reference speak about using it while the airplane is crusing. A pressurized airline cabin is the equivilent of about 8,000 feet. An airline typically cruises between 33,000 and 42,000 feet, where it is incredibly cold and hard to breathe. This is why the cabins are pressurized, and why the iPod continues to function. Working in Apple Support myself I have experienced an incredubly small amount of failures that occurred after the customer traveled by airplane. mgahs 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Could it be called the "Apple iPod" to avoid the capital "I"
I'm new here, and don't know too much about Wikipedia, but wouldn't it make sense to do that? It looks strange when you look at the page and iPod is spelled "IPod" --Edmn61 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the product name is just IPod, but the manufacturer is Apple, so it could work . Besides, it would follow the convention used by Apple Macintosh. — Wackymacs 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look through the Talk page history. I'm sure this idea has been discussed a number of times and rejected. AlistairMcMillan 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW Macintosh is at "Apple Macintosh" because there are other meanings of Macintosh. AlistairMcMillan 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, who is in favour of moving Apple Macintosh to Macintosh and moving the current contents of Macintosh to "Macintosh (disambig)"? AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye to that one, AlistairMcMillan. — Wackymacs 20:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

iPod as a lighting conductor
I was reading the newspaper in Toronto a few days ago, and there was a story about a person who was struck by lightning when the ipod acted as a conductor for the lightning in a thunderstorm. I'll look for that article.- Delta Spartan 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't bother. All the articles that covered the subject made clear that everyone asked, except for the guy who was struck and his mother, didn't think the guy's iPod could act as a conductor for lightning. AlistairMcMillan 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Next we should outlaw metal pens or glasses :p Tyciol 12:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

iPod table
I edited the iPod models table to have an easier view of the chronological release. I hope the creator of the table does not mind of the changes, the information is intact. The addtion of color futher enhances this chart. Please see this article I created recently, support it by improbing it, pre-order don't let them erase it.--Toosmart215 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good effort, but it has a few problems: There's no gridlines, making it confusing to identify as a table, and this might cause problems when printed. It's inconsistent compared to tables on other articles, and most tables don't use centred text. Also, the models table is not really showing a chronological release - the timeline does this.


 * For some reason, you've added a large amount of strange text just underneath the table (see the edit here: ). I think this is confusing the wiki server and and preventing some sections underneath from being edited. --IE 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

added criticisms concernting iPod Shuffle
Since PC World has now officially reported on the iPod Shuffle's mysterious corruptions, effectively destroying the device, and the growing threads on the Apple forums about the issue, I added it to the criticisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.70.33 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 August 2006

New timeline
Any strong reason not to use the new timeline image? I know that User:Wackymacs mentioned the lack of embedded links, but these are in the table and througout the article. Are they really needed again on an image? --IE 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another reason is that the non-image timeline is easier to update. AlistairMcMillan 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's easy to update both of them. Plus they only need updating 2 or 3 times a year. --IE 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I don't know what the main criticism is. Is it the file format, design, use of non-free software,...? Please let me know. --IE 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The old timeline was OK, but there are some things that could be improved, that were addressed in the new one. The old one was quite verbose and this distracts the content. For example, the words "Dock connector" and "DC" are shown a total of 7 times, and even this is ambiguous since the 3rd, 4th and 5th gen have dock connectors.


 * Also it's difficult to tell which one is 1st gen, 2nd gen etc because the blue colors used are so similar. The new timeline has better differentiated colors. That's perhaps why anonymous user:64.90.198.6 was able to spot an error in the models table so quickly, when the new timeline was up (see edit here).


 * Also the text rendering on the old one is fairly poor, although this was improved slightly on a later version. The new timeline would also allow us to get rid of the redundant sub-heading "Timeline of iPod models", and just use one main heading of "iPod Models" or something.


 * Also the old timeline has a width that's too long when viewed on a small screen. This is a minor issue, but even articles that have a lot of images, like Autostereogram, have all their images fitting on a small screen.--IE 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh, why do we have to have this ugly timeline? The text is too large, the colors are ugly, it stands out too much, and its harder to update and tweak than the other one. Also, it doesn't match the timeline on Apple Macintosh, and also the timeline on Timeline of Apple Macintosh models, and many other timelines on Wikipedia. I vote no against the new Image-only timeline. — Wackymacs 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've reduced the text sizes and toned down the colors. I'll look into exporting as SVG. You could still revert back to the old one if you have strong reservations. --IE 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks the same to me, and its not a cache problem. See, its a pain to tweak! I'm reverting to the older one...for the third time. — Wackymacs 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a cache problem. Just because the server takes a few hours to refresh an image during high traffic doesn't qualify it being "a pain to tweak". Also, exporting to SVG doesn't necessarily make it easier to update - perhaps easier to distribute. Also, there are other images in this article that are in PNG format, like the sales chart. So your claims are invalid.--IE 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't the point where consensus was reached. And I stand by what I said earlier... how exactly can anyone else update this image? How are you generating it? Does anyone who wants to update it have to have MS Word and Apple's Pages installed?

Also, I really don't like the choice of colours. I don't know exactly what would look better, but the rainbow of colours combined with the big lettering make it look kinda bad. Also... why do the numbers not all line up? Take the longest line that starts under 1G and ends just before 5G. "10 GB" is almost touching the bottom of the line and the first "20 GB" is almost touching the top of the line.

If this was recreated an SVG image that anyone could easily edit, I might support it instead of the Wiki timeline, but as a PNG it gets both thumbs down from me. AlistairMcMillan 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Whichever timeline is used, the new shuffel need to be labeled as 2nd gen Nicoli nicolivich 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IPOD VIDEO
WHAT is the ipod video 30GB screen specs? virus 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is 2.5 inches diagonal, 320*240 resolution and 65,000 colors. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.–-  kungming·  2 | (Talk ·Contact) 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-Standard File Type
The default file type on Ipods is AAC/MP4A - from the page |Advanced Audio Coding it appears that it is not a proprietary file type. This section may also be a violation of "Positive tone". (Should I perhaps have marked this as dubious instead of NPOV?) 202.168.63.129 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Chas66.

Michael Dhuey
Apple hardware engineer Michael Dhuey did about the last 30% of the work on the first iPod, but his name has been erased from this article as of August 23, 2006. Why? Design News magazine nominated him for Design News Engineer of the Year based partly on his work on the iPod. — Walloon 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New Section please
There should be a section about how these damn iPods break all the time. My replacement just broke, and a BRAND NEW USED ONE never even worekd to begin with. --66.234.203.32 09:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already a critisms section. Could you please explain what you mean by Brand New Used? –-  kungming·  2 | (Talk ·Contact) 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was used, it wasn't "brand new," genius. It's not Apple's fault, it's your fault for buying used electronics.

Article Title
Since the correct title is iPod but we cant capitalise it, why don't we just change the title to Apple iPod? It is the title in German Wikipedia and it looks better. Currently it looks like LPod.
 * I like this suggestion. I'll suggest a RM. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Backlight
It says in the article that holding menu turns on the backlight which is not true anymore, and is a major pain in the ass.
 * Well, it's still true for my 4th gen. iPod. --StimpsonDE 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What the...
Who on earth moved this to The iPod, that's the worst name for an article EVER. It was fine before, no reason was given to the move and no vote was given. — Wackymacs 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not fine. The "i" was capitalized which is bad.
 * Ugh...I HATE IT when people do this crap. Now the peer review links are also broken on the Talk page. Can someone please change all this back? — Wackymacs 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be . *sighs* This user also played around with the redirects on IPod, making it impossible to move the article back there. I left a message on WP:RM, but queries there take forever to be answered. Maybe we should try WP:AN or WP:ANI for a faster response, since this is such a high-traffic article. —Whomp t/c  19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is so farked. Sorry for moving some stuff around. Thought I understood; guess I don't. Anyway, just trying to help. Please no hating. Cheers! ≡ DISHWASHEЯRAT ↔ (TALK) 19:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the help, but it's probably best to let an admin handle this one. Voortle move the page about 2 or 3 times, so some pages are going to need to be deleted, moved and restored. —Whomp t/c  19:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Not sure which of the new redirects are useful and which aren't, so I'm leaving them be until someone more knowledgeable decides which ones should stay. —Cleared as filed. 20:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

IPod to the iPod. There's no such thing as an IPod, only an iPod. Having an article on IPods is like having an article on gweemps, as they both don't exist. Only iPods exist, and so that should be the title. "IPod" in the font its in looks like "el pod", rather than "eye pod". Voortle 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I don't see any reason whatsoever to include the in the title. I also think that people are smart enough to know the difference between a lowercase l and an uppercae I. I doubt anyone would think it was prounced el pod. --My old username 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Grammatical articles, such as "the", are not recommended in Wikipedia article titles. Also, as stated above, readers have enough sense to know to pronounce it "eye pod". Tom H 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per Tom H. --rogerd 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as per above. Mushroom (Talk) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as per above. The article already had the standard "technical limitations" disclaimer at the top which mentioned the true name.  Besides, if people are so stupid that they can't figure out IPod is really an iPod, then they are probably too stupid to run a computer anyway, and therefore won't be using Wikipedia.  --Rehcsif 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per the above. This move would be a blatant violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. —Whomp t/c  02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This is actually rather funny; you should see a similar discussion over at Talk:Prime minister. --SigPig 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. 'The' also suggests that there are other things named 'iPod' (which there aren't). Carson 03:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's "iPod" and not "the iPod". The standard technical resctriction message is at the top. TJ Spyke 04:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. Looks like you lost, Voortle. — Wackymacs 06:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Hús ö nd 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name of the product doesn't have a definite article. GMcGath 17:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. That's just pointless. --NPswimdude500 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as all above. -- Beardo 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above. Kilbosh 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above. the iPod doesn't work. Now, Apple iPod would be OK, but the iPod? No. CahalanesDunmanway 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think there was a consensus—it's just that the consensus was to leave it here.--HereToHelp 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

6th Generation?
I've heard rumours of a 6th generation iPod being released on the 12th of his month. Are these rumours true? --72.228.5.240 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kind of a funny question. Kinda sorta by definition, we won't know if the rumors are true until the 12th ;) --Rehcsif 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just wondering if anyone else had heard anything about it also. --72.228.5.240 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did you hear this? Nicoli nicolivich 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

6th generation iPod has been revealed. Edits needed immediately. --65.175.198.184 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * link? reffrence? i see no mention of this on the apple site Nicoli nicolivich 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * nope just rumors, lots of new stuff just announced though see


 * iLounge: 249 and 349 with 30GB and 80GB capacity
 * 10:10 am	iLounge: games will work on 5G ipods
 * 10:09 am	iLounge: games for sale off iTunes for $4.99
 * 10:08 am	iLounge: new iPod software features: instant searching, new games (Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong, Mini golf, pac man, tetris, texas holdem, vortex, and zuma)
 * 10:07 am	iLounge: iPod is getting enhanced today. 60% brighter with brighness control, 3.5 hours video playback (up from 2 hrs... big version goes to 6.5 hours), new headphones, gapless playback

The 5th generation was ENHANCED! I don't think this enhancement is the 6G. Please change until Apple officially calls this enhancement 6G.


 * in fact, the store refers to the new games as only playing on 5th generation iPods. That strongly suggests that despite the differing capacities and new screen, it's still the "5th generation." Nsayer 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Hamish (Talk) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all on the website now. Apple.com — Wackymacs 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And the website clearly states that is is still a FIFTH GENERATION iPOD! dummy, here is the  link.  Look at the bottom left corner where there is a link to the PHOTO GALLERY, the text below says so.  This is NOT a 6th generation, so someone please change it back192.91.75.30 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's not bloody 5.5 either, it's 5.1 if you have to do that at all.
 * Heres the new ipod line: 2G Shuffle, 2G Nano, and 5.1G Video. iTunes 7 is released too (its way cooler than 6 in my opinion!) just to clarify this here. Djsonik 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Apple iPod
iPod → Apple iPod – To remove the "technical limitation" issue with regard to the name which is correctly "iPod". Also iPod has become a generic term of sorts for MP3 players along the lines of Kleenex or Q-tips. This article deals solely with Apple's MP3 player offerings. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Support for obvious reasons. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; it looks better. (Way better than the 'the iPod' proposal!) Good idea. Djsonik 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Naming conventions (common names).  This move has already been proposed and failed.  Adding "Apple" to the front of articles has been done before with iMac and iTunes and has been reversed.  The product name is iPod, which is how it is commonly referred to.  The technical limitations should not be a consideration.  &mdash; Miles&larr;&#9742; 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since when does evading the technical limitations trump the best name?  The current name allows easy linking of iPod inline with no redirect.  People talk about their iPods, not their Apple iPods. SnowFire 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Good idea! 213.112.157.154 11:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reason Miles K provided. Mastercheif 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have to say that I disagree strongly with the suggestion that iPod has become a generic term along the lines of kleenex.  No one says that they have a new Sony iPod.  Skeezix1000 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has been discussed a number of times.  Apple calls it the iPod.  Everyone else calls it the iPod.  AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reason that MilesK has provided. Daniel's page    ☎  03:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same reason that MilesK provided.Bollinger 05:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Even though it is not a widely accepted term, many articles on Wikipedia use uncommon terms such as reffering to a lady beetle (ladybird or ladybug). Wikipedia uses the Latin name, Coccinellidae. Plus it is also used by the German Wikipedia and it looks much better. See for yourself. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_iPod

Discussion

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

new timeline
Why is the new ipod nano on the new timeline not labled as 2nd generation? Nicoli nicolivich 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly because it's not the second generation yet. -Unknown

ipod 5g update 1.2 questions
i don't know where else to look for help with some problems i've been having, so i'm asking here. i recently updated my 5g 60gb ipod to version 1.2 and now whenever i connect my ipod to my pc, the backlight comes on dimmer. how do i turn the backlight off completely? also i have a question that the answer for should maybe go on this page. when the ipod is plugged into the computer or to a tv and charger simultaniously. does the power go into the battery then to the backlight/tv. so for this backlight thing, would the power be chargering the battery, then the backlight taking power form the battery, or is the power linked to the backlight directly? thanx. Patrick 04:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While this is definitely not the right place to look for help, this is how to turn the backlight off: at the main menu, press Settings -> Backlight Timer -> Off. The reason your backlight is dimmer probably has to do with the brightness settings. This is at Settings -> Brighness settings. As for the charging question. I believe that the power source is charging the battery and the backlight at the same time. Someone correct me if im wrong. Next time, ask your iPod related questions at Apple's Support Forums or somwthing similar. Peace. Djsonik 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

New Article
This Article seems to be more about iPod the brand then the iPod. I think there should be a separate section for the current iPod (video), like there is for the nano, mini, and shuffle. This article has alot of detail not directly related to the product, and its related products, while the nano mini and shuffle do not. What are your opinions on this?
 * I agree to some of it. An even better idea is to move iPod nano, iPod mini, iPod shuffle, and iPod photo to one article called "iPod Models and Software". I don't think there's any need to have 4 separate articles on very similar subjects. This new article could also merge some stuff from Comparison of iPod Managers, and it can contain details about all the video conversion software that can be used for the video iPod. By the way, please sign your discussion comments. --IE 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think each model has more then enough info unique to it to remain a seperate article. Gateman1997 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah but this article isnt about the ipod, i.e. the 5th generation video which it is currently, it is more about the brand with lots of random bits thrown in. I noticed this when the nano, shuffel, and mini all had links, but the standard iPod didnt (no user name, new to wikipedia)
 * I don't agree about merging all the existing sister articles into one, but maybe an iPod (5th generation) article is needed. — Wackymacs 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating another article for an iPod model is not a sensible idea. iPod (5th generation) is not an official product name and could cause confusion. What happens if they bring out a 6th generation? Does the page change its name or is yet another article created for the same product? Also, people are likely to create additional articles like iPod 1st generation, iPod 2nd generation and so on. The best way is to have one article. --IE 11:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should be about all of the iPods. We need to have a different article for each different line, Like the iPod nano should have its own article, but not a new article for first genoration and second genoration. The name for the new iPod (5th genoration etc...)aritcle should be "iPod (hardware) or something along those lines, and this article should be "iPod (product line).Mastercheif 05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but none of the suggestions for separate articles are suitable. I'm going to begin merging the iPod models articles, unless there's a good reason not to. --IE 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, NO? *Think* about it. This article is already over the limit at 48k. How are you going to merge the rest into this one without it going over 80k again? — Wackymacs 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Masterchief. We should keep the separate articles. The article "iPod" should just be about the actual iPod, similar to the "iPod nano" and "iPod shuffle" articles. Then have an article titled "iPod (product line)" or "iPod family" or whatever that covers all the different models as a whole. One big reason for doing this, aside from this article already being way too long, is that if we merge the separate articles into one big "iPod" article then if someone wants to create a link to a specific model in another article then the link is going to be something like "iPod#iPod mini". AlistairMcMillan 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to have 2 iPod articles on wikipedia. One is called "iPod" which is this article: It's about the brand, history etc and stays the same. The 2nd article is "iPod models and software" which is just all the separate models articles merged into one.--IE 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think everyone understood that was your intent the first time. I still disagree with it. There is more then enough information to maintain seperate articles for each line. If you merge them all together you risk creating an article that is much more then the suggested upper limit. Gateman1997 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please continue this at Talk:iPod models and software AlistairMcMillan 18:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

iPod Earphones
I don't get this. Earphones are put under advertisement. And it goes:
 * "The iPod's white earphone cords have become symbolic of the brand, and advertisements feature them prominently. In fact, the earphones have such strong visual recognition characteristics that some have said they can be a liability. After a 24% rise in robbery and a 10% increase in grand larceny in the New York City subway, a spokesperson for the NYC police suggested that iPods might be behind the increases."

First, what do earphones have to do with advertisement? Second, why is there no mention of the new earphones that were introduced recently? Misha 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, read it. The ads prominently feature the earphones, sometimes not the iPod itself, just the iPod earphones. — Wackymacs 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertising
9/25/2006 the iPod page says: "September 2006 A new ad featuring the updated iPod nano.Silhouette dancers can only be seen when the cross the paths of color generated by their iPod nano. This features the song "The Audience Is Listening Theme Song" by Cut Chemist[61]." Is this new ad on Television? if so, perhaps this entry should say "A new television ad featuring" Or is this on busses? and I think there is a missing "y" - "Silhouette dancers can only be seen when they cross the paths..."

Design Chain
I think the article needs to point out that Apple used the Design Chain method of product design and development in coordination with PortalPlayer. This Design Chain method page is being built right now and needs links to support it. Refer to the following article. Anomalycp 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple words to a paragraph in History to indicate the method by which Apple instituted its production of the iPod, i.e. Design Chain. Anomalycp 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)