Talk:IPod/Archive 8

"Refreshed" Shuffle the 3rd gen?
According to this page, http://www.apple.com/support/manuals/ipod/ It says "iPod shuffle (2nd & 3rd Generation) (1GB)" But I thought it was still considered the 2nd generation..? AquaStreak 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apple's been kinda confusing with the redesign of the whole line. They renamed all the original iPods (1st G, 2nd G, etc.) the iPod classic, and they consider a change of color choices a new generation. But, as it is Apple, if they say it's the 3rd Gen., it is the 3rd Gen. IT'S DA... Ανέκδοτο 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 1st-5th generation iPods are still referred to by Apple as still "iPod", "iPod with Color Display", etc., see here – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This has actually been discussed before. See here. Cheers - IT'S DA... Ανέκδοτο 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no it hasn't. That topic is slightly different. I'm talking about the iPod shuffle generations, not renaming the suffix. AquaStreak 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you're talking about the shuffle, I was responding to Frijole. IT'S DA... Ανέκδοτο 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

iPods and Crime
There's a report out linking iPods to the recent increase in robberies: http://www.urban.org/publications/411552.html Why was this link deleted from the iPod page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.73.245 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlwayne 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Earl Wayne
 * It was placed under "criticisms". It's hard to criticize a product over the fact that some hoodlums want to kill each other over said product (assuming, of course, the product and/or its advertising doesn't promote that).  If someone wants to add this tidbit in a way that doesn't seem to blame it on the iPod itself, go for it.  --Rehcsif 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The report does not blame iPods for crime, it just simply says that huge iPod sales are correlated with big increases in robbery. It's on the front page of the New York Times at the moment, and the Urban Institute is a leading think tank, so it is certainly a credible story. Where do you think it should go? Or is the idea that nothing negative should go on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.73.245 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't go under "Criticisms". Perhaps in the cultural references section?  --Rehcsif 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disk Use
The article incorrectly claims that all iPods support disk use. This is not correct for the iPod Touch model.

You can access the files on it using utilities like iPhuc though. http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/21/use-your-ipod-touch-as-second-rate-400-usb-stick/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.24.2 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that, I saw it on Apple support, they say it is a common occurence. --Rsrikanth05 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

History and design subsection?
I propose an "Etymology" sub-section for the last paragraph in History and Design. I think the name origin is significant enough to warrant this. StevePrutz 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think a separate paragraph is enough. Ανέκδοτο 23:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Template conversion
From Infobox PMP to Information appliance. Both templates contain the same queries, with the latter suppling more to facilitate a broader range of devices. No data from this article was removed.

By the way, Infobox PMP is being considered for deletion. Newer articles like iPod touch and iPod classic already use Information appliance. -- Jw21 / PenaltyKillah (discuss•edits) 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

the name of said product
I'd just like to add a personal observation, the name 'iPod' when you think or say it out loud has a meaning if 'Pod' is a verb. It wouldn't have to be seen just like that for there to be a meaning- you could also say it implies a fundamental association with 'Pod' as if 'i' and the 'Pod' are one entity. When I read or think the word iPod I get the feeling I'm being manipulated by the word from this implied association. The fact this implied meaning has it's own word implies it has some sort of truth- the fundamental oneness of 'i' and 'Pod' is a real enough thing to have its own word to describe this true function of real life. You're meant to say it as two words -like saying 'I Pod' but you read it as one, it forces you to connect yourself to the word- also the fact of 'i' being lower case and 'Pod' being upper creates an effect which I won't go into as its obvious what this effect is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.170 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure what was just said ... :-) Ανέκδοτο 03:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what, I too have the feeling I've been manipulated in the past by the word "iPod". It's about time someone has had the courage to come out and make this public. Could you please expand further on the obvious effect of the mix of upper and lower case characters? Although I agree the effect is obvious, it still needs to be said. AlistairMcMillan 09:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. It would be great if someone made this point in public. I'm not an academic so I can only go on personal response but reading a lower case 'i' in the context of an advert (where you're supposed to associate with the person in the advert) gives me a nasty feeling - we all know intuitively what it means I think. You're supposed to write upper case 'I' if you're writing and you mean 'me'- when you read a lower case 'i' which means "you" - (the advertiser speaking) it has a negative effect - you're being (subconsciously perhaps) de-humanised slighty when you read it. This relationship is also emphasised in the pictures that go with the adverts - the 'i' human figures are black and the 'Pod' is white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.170 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And this relates to improving the article how? Mr.  Z- man  20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative firmware
I'd like to add a section, talking about non official open source firmware available for iPod (runs on ⅔ of all iPod models). It called Rockbox and have many features not available in official firmware (though it may lack some features of the official firmware and may have some impacts on the warranty). I have prepared a template, which I add to all players supported by this firmware (it runs not only on iPods). I've tried to make it neutral, not advertising and short and at the same time show the features which may be added to iPods installing this firmware. I think, this section may be of interest to anybody interested in iPods, especially enthusiasts and geeks.

The section contents is shown below (between two horizontal lines)

Rockbox is an free and open source firmware, released under GPL license. Among others, it supports iPod classic series (from 1st to 5th generations), iPod mini (both 1st and 2nd generations) and 1st generation of iPod nano. Rockbox main features include:
 * support of over 15 audio codecs, including Ogg and FLAC
 * support of Replay Gain (volume normalization), Gapless playback and Last.fm
 * MPEG video support
 * many games, including sudoku, solitaire, Pac-Man and the famous Doom
 * graphical interface, customizable through themes
 * installable plugins: clock, calendar, dictionary, text and image viewer, screensavers
 * multilingual interface with more than 30 languages supported
 * voice driven interface, especially useful for blind people

Note, that above features are subject to the platform limitations. Rockbox may lack some features of the official firmware (for example digital rights management) and may considerably change look and feel of the player. Depending on the manufacturer and reseller, usage of Rockbox may void player warranty.

What is your opinion about this addition?

ilia 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, you can reference Rockbox in the article, but do not insert that template into any of the iPod articles. I don't think it's appropriate at all. Butterfly0fdoom 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Added battery life column
As it was on the "to-do" list on this talk page and I had time, I went model by model and added the battery life. If I should change how anything is, just post your feedback. The battery is based on Apple's specifications, a brand new battery, fully charged. I have obtained the information for the battery life estimates from Apple's own website, at the following link:

http://support.apple.com/specs/ipod/

(Go to each specific model to see the battery life)

So, please post your feedback. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AquaStreak (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Looks great.--HereToHelp 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing
I recently watched a bit from a Japanese documentary which seems to indicate that the shiny stainless steel backs of the iPods are polished by hand, not in an automated fashion, by skilled artisans with a long tradition of expert polishing.

Is this the case for all iPods? for all iPods in Japan? If so, it might be an interesting bit to include in the article. Manufacturing methods and distribution (i.e. where are which parts created) more generally might also be interesting. Thanks. LordAmeth 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is really interesting. Yeah, it would be a good fact for the article. As for if it's only Japanese iPods, I'd highly doubt it for 2 reasons: 1) All iPods are made in China, so why would they polish some and not all? Because all iPods are shined when they are new; 2) North America has the biggest market for iPods, followed by Europe. Why would they only polish a smaller market for the particular player? AquaStreak 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New iPod timeline template
I have created a new timeline at Template:iPod timeline and propose that it is used in place of Template:Timeline of iPod models. Any thoughts? Java13690 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * certainly cleaner. Go for it; David Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dislike it. The old one has colors that make it more distinct. I suppose the new one might be a little more readable however.--HereToHelp 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did consider colouring the template along the same lines as the original template (i.e. shades of red for compact models and blue for full-size) but this requires a key which I think makes the thing look messy. What does anyone else think - coloured or not?. And is anyone able to centre the title ("iPod timeline v • d • e ") please? Java13690 16:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Despite being more readable, I just dislike the timing limitations of the type of timeline you created. It works for things that go by years, but the flaws of that kind of timeline for this type of application is apparent when it implies that the product was available in, for example, October when it was, in fact, released in September, yet you can't say that the previous generation ended in August because that would be just as erroneous. Butterfly0fdoom (talk)

Model table
I thought putting "Changes introduced" into its own row might help the layout. - Pronoiac (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, when I first looked at it, I blinked like "wtf?!?". But after I looked at what you did, I think its great. It can also allow for more data columns above the "changes" row. I'm for it. AquaStreak (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the change, but it needs the pricing column, too. The formatting job you did on the 5G's battery life box doesn't work, either. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did this partially to remove unwanted columns, not to clear room for more. In that mode, I'd ask the questions of what info do we really want to present.  Is the price at release more than a historical curiosity now?  And how exactly does the battery life box look to you? - Pronoiac (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this chart is much better than the one currently in the article. I saw we go ahead and change it. —Mears man (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur.--HereToHelp 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :)  - Pronoiac (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was already implemented with some modifications........ Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a "thanks for liking the layout," not "thanks for changing it." Thanks for changing it, by the way.  - Pronoiac (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the "I think this this chart is much better than the one currently in the article" comment, considering that it's not that much different. (I thought you were being sarcastic about the "thanks for changing it" part (still don't know if it's sarcastic or not), but I put respective tables in each iPod's article; it's less of a hassle to remove data if it's deemed unneccessary for a general iPod information table). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

iPod picture
We need a new picture for the iPods, the picture is blurry and the screen on the iPods should be turned off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleperson (talk • contribs) 21:34, November 26, 2007


 * Just for the record, the screens should be turned on. The reader needs to see what kind of detail the screen shows, what the new generation interfaces are and such. JayKeaton (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Wii web browser
---this has to do with the ipod but i was on my wii using the internet and i zoomed in on the ipod classic and noticed the rewind buttons arrows were not touching but on the fastforward side the arrows were touching —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adogbitme7 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jon Rubinstein/Tony Fadell
Okay, so User:Podfather (Rubinstein himself?) made an edit in October 2006 to removed the cited paragraph that credited Fadell as the team leader based on a Wired article and replaced it with a sentence crediting Rubinstein as team leader based on Levy's "The Perfect Thing". Then later the same month, User:Geneffects added Anthony Fadell and Stan Ng as engineers. User:IE added Jon Ive to the list in December. User:Walloon added Michael Dhuey in March 2007.

None of this is cited.

There seem to be a few different conflicting stories of the iPod's development. If there isn't one authoritative one we can point to, then I think we should just pull all these names until one appears. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Failure Rates
The link to MacInTouch failure rates is deeply misleading.

Not only is it a self-selected survey rather than a scientific one, but the linked article clearly indicates that both damage/drop failures and battery failure (specifically failure after long life, not failure early in the life cycle, which IS what people normally consider a failure) are counted as "failures" for their purposes.

And the data also doesn't appear to correct for length of ownership.

Thus that the 1st Generation 5GB model has the worst "failure" rate tells us nothing at all, given that batteries have a finite lifespan and even if the underlying failure rate for all the hardware was identical, the older models would have more drop/damage failures simply because they've been in use longer.

A note should be added qualifying the "failure rate" to indicate some of this; anyone not following the link back and reading it will almost certainly reach an erroneous conclusion, given what people normally assume a failure rate report for hardware to include - which is failures due to manufacturing defect, not failures caused by abuse or inevitable battery failure.

(EG. One does not say a laptop has "failed" after five years if the battery has died and one doesn't wish to pay to replace it. It's just as silly to call an iPod "failed" because one didn't wish to replace the battery, even if it's slightly more work. Battery failures in an abnormally short timespan are failures in the normal sense people take the word to include, but the MacInTouch survey reasonably points out that it didn't do that.)

It would be interesting to see scientific data on actual non-drop/damage and non-aged-out-battery iPod failures. But the MinT link doesn't (and in due fairness doesn't claim to) provide that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.87.181 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

percentage
"On October 22, 2007, Apple reported quarterly revenue of US$6.22 billion, of which 30.69% came from Apple notebook sales, 19.22% from desktop sales and 26% from iPod sales" this doesnt add up to 100% it adds up to around 75% was the rest in drug sales??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.106.81 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what about software sales and itunes earnings? those arn't all the numbers acasperw (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)