Talk:IPod Touch/Archive 1

speed
O boy, you guys are crazy! The event isn't even done yet and there is already a 2-page article on the wikipedia! Incredible! :-) Peter S. 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Title
I’ve requested a move to iPod touch as it seems Apple styles the device with a lowercase t, as is consistent with the rest of their product line. Max Naylor 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... we should wait until they update the official apple website for that. 96.226.68.113 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Name Taken From Creative???
There is a Creative MP3 Player called Zen Touch... Coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.186.241 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Anyway, this discussion page is only for talking about the article, not the product. --DogGunn 08:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CONSPIRACY I tell ya!

Could you stop shooting down every new topic with that? What's relevant to the product is relevant to the article about the product. I'm sure the OP meant to imply that this is something that could be mentioned in the article, although personally i don't think it should be. I'm finding that wikipedia is not very welcoming to noobs, and tends to assume bad faith. Maybe this is what provokes much of the vandalism you whine about.--80.86.74.135 12:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of criticisms
A user removed the criticisms section with the explaination "You've got to be kidding me"

A little more elaboration on this please? Maybe it is too early to have a criticism section? I think the thousands of people clamoring about the small storage space *is* noteworthy enough to warrant a criticism section, so please, discuss it with me before I add it back.Drewson99 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The criticism section was an unencyclopedic load of rubbish that violates the manual of style. It was one person's criticism (in other words, original research) written in a stupid tone. Stephen Shaw 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so your objection is with the tone of the section, not the presence of a criticism section in general?64.37.159.196 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to both the tone and the source of that "criticism". One can't just go onto a page about a product and list ones criticisms of the product. Stephen Shaw 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

speed
O boy, you guys are crazy! The event isn't even done yet and there is already a 2-page article on the wikipedia! Incredible! :-) Peter S. 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

it's not that impressive; It's only from one source: apple.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Title
I’ve requested a move to iPod touch as it seems Apple styles the device with a lowercase t, as is consistent with the rest of their product line. Max Naylor 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... we should wait until they update the official apple website for that. 96.226.68.113 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

delete tag needs to be removed seeing as this is an actual apple product now. 82.27.107.85 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

An amazing lack of original sources here folks. Xamphear 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Launch Date
The launch date has been listed on the Apple Store as the 28th of September; I submitted this but User:Max Naylor undid it. Anybody care to readd it or...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PdDemeter (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn’t realise... I’ll put it back in. Max Naylor 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just worried if there was a policy against listing it until it actually shipped:) --PdDemeter 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t think there is, but you’ll probably need to find a reference for this date. Max Naylor 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that it was already out? You can buy it on their site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.72.83 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Apple Store says that it will ship BY September 28th. Apple may very well ship before this date, especially to very early order-placers. I don't think it's completely accurate to state 9/28 as the firm release date. -VJ 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, Engadget is reporting that they've already hit stores (http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/13/ipod-touch-showing-up-in-stores-gets-unboxed/). The launch date was not meant to be taken as firm. I don't know how it should be presented in the article, but September 28th is not an official launch date of any kind. Let's just say "September 5 (announced)" or "around September 13th"? -VJ 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They have been shipped to at least some Apple Stores in the US, however they are not available anywhere else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watters (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I talked to one of the salesmen at Apple today, they said that the iPod Touch would be shipped 'in bulk' everywhere on the 28th. Every store I contacted in Maryland said they had gotten them, but that 1. They were sold out, and 2. Apple only released the 16GB and planned on going full throttle on the 28th with 8GB and 16GB.
 * 68.55.235.179 00:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod Touch vs. iPod touch
I think, for the sake of consistency with other iPod articles and official styling by Apple, we should stick to the iPod touch capitalisation, please stop reverting my edits, if you want capital T’s, I’ll happily discuss it with you here. Max Naylor 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, Max.--Asderoff 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I want capital Ts. -Henry W. Schmitt 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * go to apple website, they have lower case t's--Olavid 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like big T's and big A's. -Henry W. Schmitt 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, you like it big :) but see Steve, it is both lowercase :  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.137.24 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
"The iPod touch has a disappointingly low amount of storage space" doesn't really sound like NPOV to me. Delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodevermeiren (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I added "as compared to previous flagship models" hopefully that puts it more NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.176.194 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the word 'disappointingly' can never be npov, except in the context of any certain person or group of people that are disappointed.--80.86.74.135 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the criticism of it being like the iphone. feel free to write that more elegantly. or delete. whatever--80.86.74.135 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a cheap shot: "... however it lacks the storage capacity to store a significant number of videos alongside a music library." 16GB is a lot of space for movies, if you figure 700 MB per 2 hour movie, thats 20 feature length movies with some space to spare. I don't know about you all but as long as it can hold a few movies thats enough for me. --Ray andrew 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a cheap shot, might need rewording or a separate criticism section but it is true when you consider it "alongside a music library". A lot of people will have a minimum 10-15GB of music on the larger model (esp with high bitrate/lossless formats which is very common) and that only leaves enough for 1 or 2 movies. 79.67.254.214 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What is WRONG with people?! This product isn't even out yet! It was just announced... TODAY! How does looking similar to an iPhone and 16 GB of storage count as criticism? And even if it does, it doesn't need it's own section. I'm going to distribute the retarded looking criticism amongst the rest of the article and delete the section to present a npov.--Asderoff 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's presented as if it's a new breakthrough product, but it's just a cheaper version of the iphone.--80.86.74.135 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: It is not cheaper. It is the same price as the iPhone (or at least the high end one is) -66.245.153.53 01:25, 7 September 2007

Google Maps
So where is the google maps app that the iPhone has? Anyone got a clue why this is missing. --Ray andrew 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Google Maps was to be used through the EDGE interface of the iPhone and not through Wi-FI, if I understand correctly. --DogGunn 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it pulled the maps down over Wi-Fi if its available. --Ray andrew 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no google maps app because that app is reserved for the iPhone. Apple haven't included it to differentiate between the iPod touch and the iPhone. Notice how there isn't a camera or an email app. The iPod touch is really just a stripped down iPhone. Finally, this page is for discussing the article not the product Stephen Shaw 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Features Left Out
I wonder why the Notes function was left out of iPod touch. Delta40 [talk] 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question! But, I don't think there is any keyboard programs in the iPod touch. --DogGunn 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is, picture are shown on Engadget. On that note, Google Maps is missing too... I hope they eventually include Skype on iPod touch or the iPhone, and maybe a pdf reader and bluetooth so you can transfer files. Then it'll be a even better device. Delta40 [talk] 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you cannot add Skype to the touch because ther is no microphone - 66.245.153.53 01:27, 7 September 2007

it could be added as an accessory maybe..--80.86.74.135 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

'This page is for discussion of the article'' "iPod touch". It is not for discussing the product or its missing features. ''' Stephen Shaw 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Page
There was already a page created for this but it was called Wifi iPod. Can we merge the pages 80.229.169.189 08:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Requested Speedy Deletion --DogGunn 09:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thats not exactly fair, the stuff in that article was relevent 80.229.169.189 11:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

similar products
is it worth mentioning similar products. for example the N800 internet tablet. --87.127.117.246 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's about the touch itself, not the technology shared. NyyDave 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"added link to comprehensive review"
Can you please stop adding it? Since the article was created you have added the website many times. Currently there is no content on the site, and it is filled with ads. Until there is some content, I recommend that you stop posting it. --DogGunn 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

sooooo
So its an iPhone... without the phone? 70.113.85.225 00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Same technology, so I guess it is. --DogGunn 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

'This page is for discussion of the article'' "iPod touch". It is not for discussing the product. ''' Stephen Shaw 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

^Relax, mom.--Asderoff 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Features the iPhone DOESN"T Have
Anyone notice from the video that there are some features the iPhone does not have? Like double-clicking the home button to bring up the iPod controls when locked? gujamin 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * that's not wikipedia worthy information imo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And it does not have anything to do with the iPod touch. This discussion page is for the iPod touch and not the iPhone. --DogGunn 06:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

'This page is for discussing the  ARTICLE '' iPod touch. NOT the products iPod touch or iPhone (Read the heading of the page!).''' Stephen Shaw 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a blu-ray reader, I was hoping they would introduce that... Stephen Shaw, relax, there's no need to go around policing the talk pages, go write an article or something instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pricing and Package contents
These fiddling details are bordering on promotional material. —überRegenbogen 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see one Buy Now link, so I don't believe it is at all promotional, rather factual. --DogGunn 02:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The lengthy section on pricing makes wikipedia read like a sales catalogue. --Oscarthecat 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the guidelines at WP:NOT make it quite clear : therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. I've now revised the article. --Oscarthecat 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Why does the picture on th article keep changing and disappearing? can't we just get one picture and keep it?86.129.233.57 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason the picture keeps on disapearing is because of licensing issues. All of the pictures that have been put up, have been taken by websites, and not by someone who owns the picture. --03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DogGunn (talk • contribs)  - Update: Dang, could've sworn I signed it. Thanks Sinebot --DogGunn 06:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo
While we can't use Apple's publicity shots for the article picture we could use a Creative Commons one. Do a search on flickr and people have CC photos they took at the event of the display versions of iPod touch. Would it be ok to upload one of these seeing as they are creative commons or would the original photographer still have to be the one to upload?

Here are good ones that could be used:

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1333413585&size=l http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1332398406&size=o

NeoRicen 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for photo
I uploaded a photo under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License version 2.0: Image:Ipod_touch_on_table.jpg The source is there and the flickr member took the photo and had some rights reserved. If someone would put in the photo. Ipodtoucher 07:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Something I found on Engadget
Has anyone else seen this article on Engadget? I think we should integrate some of this information into the Wiki article. Bolmedias 11:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not worthy. The device was dissected and there was no Bluetooth antenna, and there was no chip. However, feel free to write up on iPod touch's without the OSX loaded. --DogGunn 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Release date
Is the iPod touch relase date on September 13, or 28? 71.106.1.211 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 28th, some stores have been selling it since the 13th, but it's not the official date. --DogGunn 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But, that is ships by, so it could potentially be earlier than that Watters 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct. The actual... official... listed... release date is the 28th September 2007. Shops have had leaks, and for some reason have started to sell them in the US. --DogGunn 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

oh give it up man, its been released, change the release date to the date of release. thank you205.132.174.254 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But it hasn't officially been released. Wikipedia is not about sharing opinions, it's about giving factual information. So, we use the official date. --DogGunn 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that it has been released before the official date, not an opinion. It is false to say that it hasn't been released because the official release date has not been yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the 13th as an unofficial date in the release date... I agree that it has been released but not the street date apple wanted. Bliks 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I definately agree that it is an unofficial launce date but still needs to be mentioned because they are clearly being sold. However is it certain that it is only in USA, or are there other places? It should be more specific. 125.168.3.21 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, yes, it is just the US. I wasnt sure how to add the flag. thank you Bliks 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many online orders began to be delivered to U.S. and UK customers on September 18, 2007. Shipments worldwide will not begin to ship until September 28th" I don't get it. If people in the UK and US are starting to get them how can the seccond sentence be true? 125.168.3.21 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone should delete the sentence "Shipments worldwide will not begin to ship until September 28th" because my ipod has already shipped, and I live in Australia. It hasnt however delivered.125.168.3.21 10:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Games?
Does the ipod touch play games? is it worth noting in the article whether it does/doesn't, what games it comes with etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.169.66 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While iTunes has games, the iPod touch doesn't. It does have Wi-fi, a button to Safari which provides web access, a button directly to YouTube, and direct access to the iTunes store where you can browse and buy music and find cover art. -- Fyslee / talk 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * but is it worth mentioning in the article?86.144.169.66 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it claimed to have games, it would be worth mentioning. -- Fyslee / talk 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod touch 1.1.1 vs iPhone 1.0.2
Please consider adding an "iPod touch vs iPhone" section to this article.

Here are some of the differences I have found so far, and I think others would be interested in this as well.

The iPod touch is missing the following functionality when compared to iPhone:


 * No Google Maps, Email, Notes, Weather, Stocks
 * No Bluetooth
 * No Microphone
 * No Speaker (except for very basic sounds)
 * No Camera
 * Cannot create or edit Calendar events
 * No Vibrating Alarms
 * Of course no phone and edge network
 * Anything else I am missing?

The iPod touch does add the following functionality that the iPhone does not have:


 * Standard Headphone Jack
 * Video Output to a TV for Photos and Videos (may be in iPhone v1.1)
 * More Storage (up to 16 GB vs 8)
 * Less Tall and Thinner
 * No Monthly Fees
 * Anything else I am missing?

-- Kpr00 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... We may get into POV editorializing issues here. Such comparisons can be seen as - and in fact are - unfair criticisms. When a product does not claim to have some feature which another product does have, it isn't fair to list such a "lack" as a criticism. If we start this type of thing, then we could end up with myriad articles devoted to comparing products that do not make claims about each other. It's a very different matter if a product makes claims! It is then asking for comparisons to be made. -- Fyslee / talk 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, Fyslee, and I can see how listing differences can be taken as a criticism -- I meant it only to list facts. Each person can make up their own interpretation on whether a fact is a criticism or not. Knowing what a product is missing is just as important as knowing what it "claims" to be. This is how we choose one product over another. Each person, though, gets to decide which features are most important to them.


 * Most company's product "claims" are made by their marketing department. They only tell you what they want you to know about their product. Of course they are not going to list what is missing. This is where we come in to help people make informed decisions. We share what we have learned with each other, but stick to the facts and let each person interpret it as they will.


 * The main problem we run into by only listing what a product "claims" to be is it is often times the stuff the product does not claim that can cause our biggest frustrations with it.


 * For example, copy and paste are very important to me and one would expect any advanced computing device that allows you to enter text to also include the copy and paste functionality. But the iPhone and iPod touch lack this, which was a huge surprise and disappointment to me. Other people may not care if copy and paste is missing. Apple is not going to list on their box that copy and paste is missing. I am glad that copy and paste is listed as something the iPhone is missing on the iPhone wikipedia page.


 * Listing the facts on what is missing and what the differences are helps people to better understanding what a product can and cannot do. This way they know what to expect and helps them make more informed decisions.


 * -- Kpr00 08:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The comparison is pretty natural, don't the 2 devices appear identical when one first views them? We have lots of product feature comparison charts on wikipedia, one is called for here.  Mathiastck 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Price
Every other iPod article mentions prices that are not sales-catalogue-esque. Why when I try to add price in the exact same prose style as iPhone was I edited out? Compare: with --HansTAR 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bug: broken closing ref tag hiding Specifications heading -- Fixed
A broken closing ref tag at the end of the Criticisms section is causing the beginning of the Specifications level 1 heading to be hidden and then it confusingly shows up at the end of the References section. I would fix this myself, but I do not have permission to edit this article. -- Kpr00 09:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fyslee for fixing this. -- Kpr00 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Da nada. It was just a matter of checking the edit history and finding the last version that was OK. The next edit was where things went wrong. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you get the Specifications...
... out of the Criticisms section. For some reason, Criticisms thinks that the Specs section is part of the same section.

There seems to be an issue / bug with Wikimedia, where moving the sections stuffs up all of the article below.

How do you remove it without stuffing the article up? --DogGunn 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That problem is discussed above and is now solved. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod Touch Dev Team
Perhaps we should add a link to the iPod Touch Dev Wiki? http://www.touchdev.net/wiki/Main_Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daceilo (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section on this. There's a serious effort to open the platform for third party development that would un-cripple this device. --24.85.79.221 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Screen's color depth
This is something that I just spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find (but couldn't! apparently Apple doesn't publish the number of colors that their products can display).

I would really like to put it in, as it would give the people an idea of where this player sits in terms of "color richness". E.g., a lot of smart phones are 16 bit (65,000 colors), whereas the new Creative Zen is 24 bit (16.7 million colors).

Does anyone know what the color depth IS? Thanks. 99.225.240.50 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * it's very hard to find indeed, the regular iPods have used 64,000 colors, so as a step up I think the Touch is 262,000 colors like most PVPs are, I doubt they have 16.7 million colors because I've seen it next to an Archos player with 24-bit screen and it wasn't as natural looking, though the screen was brighter. keep an eye out and let us know if you find out.