Talk:IPod Touch/Archive 3

Jailbreaking
I was about to add a section about jail breaking the touch, but I am not sure if it is against Wiki policy or not. To my knowledge it does void the warranty but anyone who jailbreaks knows that it can be restored with out "bricking" it. What is the wiki policy on this issue? -- zrulli 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the talk archives for this article. We've been removing the jailbreaking information for various reasons. The major reasons: voids warranty - even if you can reverse the process, the risk is still there, and Wikipedia and/or its editors could be held liable for providing such information. If we added jailbreaking info here, we would need to back it up with disclaimer and such, and by that point it is not worth the hassle. There are many sites out there that provide the same information - why repeat it here? The other major reason is that an encyclopedia is not for people who want to deviate from the official product. If you want to modify a 1968 Dodge Dart, you would not find that information on Wikipedia. Same thing with electronic gear like cell phones or computers. Groink (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This kind of modification is a very big topic and should be covered in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's purpose isn't to fill in the voids other websites leave, it's to provide information, as completely as possible.  While full coverage isn't necessary for the reasons mentioned above, Jailbreaking should at least be defined in this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever someone talks about jailbreaking, he provides too much information. That's been the problem of past. Sure, you can mention it. But don't go into detail about it, as Wikipedia is not a technical manual. Use the iPhone article as a model on how to write it. You don't have to go into details about firmware version numbers, downgrading, requirements of any sort, etc. Also, keep the information POV, making sure you don't add your own opinions or conclusions (must jailbreak because Apple ______, etc.) Groink (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale on current iPod touch image
I rv'd the tagging of the image's use on this article. If you read the non-free use rationale dispute on the image itself, the image itself won't be deleted from English Wikipedia. Rather, the image will be removed from the other articles that use it - as of this edit the Talk:iPod and iPod articles. The rationale was actually meant for the iPod touch article ONLY, and it is indicated in the image's summary. Although the uploader also added the same image to the iPod article, all he need to do is modify the declaration by adding the iPod article to it. Groink (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Portable media player, or full-blown PDA?
It's obviously a portable media player, but does it have enough additional capabilities to qualify it as a full-blown personal digital assistant? Guy Harris (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition of PDA changes with each passing year, as the definition becomes more and more demanding. Today's iPod touch is as much of a PDA as the Newton messagepad was in the mid-1990s. But with the progression of the PDA over the last 15+ years, they're much more feature-packed and far more advanced than the Newton, and most certainly the iPod touch. I think once Apple starts approving the 3rd-party apps via the SDK, the iPod touch will come closer to an actual PDA. I think the iPod touch still has much more work to do regarding word processing, better editing capabilities like cut/paste, and less of a need for a middle-ware on a PC like iTunes. Groink (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

voiding warranty
"Jailbreaking also voids the iPod touch's warranty, which can lead to the device becoming unstable or at worst unusable."

Unless the intention is to imply that voiding the warranty can lead to device instability, that sentence should be rewritten. 74.79.37.59 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Voiding the warranty is the intent. In an earlier section on this talk page, I discussed the issue where if we mention hacking, we must also counter it with disclaimers. Reading around the web, many people are oblivious of the warranty issue, and perform jailbreaking hacks without understanding these consequences. Groink (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, um.. but voiding the warranty doesn't lead to device instability, jailbreaking does. That is why the sentence needs to be rewritten.

74.79.37.59 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Gib not GB
Because the iPod touch is flash based capacities should be given in Gibibytes (GiB) not Gigabytes (GB). The same applies to the memory Mebibytes (MiB) vs Megabytes (MB). I've already made this change. Gamefreak2413 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But if a manufacturer uses GB, we should also use GB. Bring it up with Apple. Also, 98-percent of the industry uses GB in their documentation. Only the really techie of all techies use GiB. Groink (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Manufacturers are usually specific these days as a result of lawsuits, and say GiB or GB when they mean it. In this case, the Apple spec referenced has a footnote indicating that 1GB = 1 Billion bytes - so Apple specifically do not mean GiB. --Bazzargh (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok but the difference between 8GiB and 8GB is almost 590MB and I think that I would care about that difference. If that figure is correct then apple is the only company that I know of that sells flash memory by the GB. I guess I will let this go, but I will correct a capitalisation error that I saw "Gb -> GB". And yes I am a geek. Gamefreak2413 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Memory and CPU Frequency
It should be added that the iPod Touch has 116 MB of memory and the CPU has a frequency of 412 MHz. David Guzmán Araiza 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And you DO have references to prove this, right? Groink (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do, I accessed system information in the iPod Touch and that was the information it had.David Guzmán Araiza 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with your method of research is that it is unacceptable by Wikipedia guidelines, as it is considered original research. We are not allowed to do the research ourselves. You need to find a reliable source on the Internet. Groink (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't know if it was added or did i just missed it when i read the article before but the specifications are there in a section of the article. isn't it appropriate to include some of that information in the product box at the top right of the padre David Guzmán Araiza 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajavax (talk • contribs)


 * The infobox you're referring to is limited to certain fields. We can't add new fields unless the fields are pre-defined in the infobox's template. Explore the source of the template to see what fields are supported. Groink (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SDK
I don't know why, but someone keeps deleting the release date for the SDK. It says it will come out on February 26, 2008. The site is: http://gizmodo.com/354365/apple-event-on-february-26-launches-iphone-sdk-and-macbook-pro. So whoever it is, STOP DELETING IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budsully13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have deleted it because the source says, "Remember, no one can confirm what Apple's announcing until they announce it" That says, they are speculating what Apple will announce 26 February.  Since the source is only speculating what Apple will announce, it does not belong in the article.  Please do not reinsert it unless you have a source that Apple will announce the SDK launch.  Jons63 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apple just said they will release it during February. They didn't specified a date. It could be February 26 as well as February 29. David Guzmán Araiza 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Software Upgrades
The following sentence under the "Software upgrades" needs to be corrected because it is not accurate: "If customers purchased their iPod touch through the Apple Store between December 27, 2007 and January 15, 2008, then they will be reimbursed the entire cost of buying the software upgrade."

I purchased an ipod touch on 1/2/08 followed by the January Software Upgrade several weeks later. After seeing this statement, contacted Apple to verify it, and ask how to obtain a refund. The following is the response (copy/paste):

''"I understand you purchased an iPod touch on January 2, 2008 and would like to know if you will be receiving a refund for the iPod touch January Software Upgrade you purchased a couple weeks later. I can certainly imagine your concern! My name is Shannon and I'm happy to help.

As announced on January 15, Apple now sells a model of iPod touch that includes Mail, Maps, Stocks, Weather, and Notes.

Customers who purchased iPod touch on or after January 15, and did not receive the upgraded software, could take advantage of Apple's 14-day price-protection and/or return period for products purchased directly from the Apple Store (online, retail, or by telephone).

..., I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for your understanding, and for being a valued member of the Apple family. I hope you have a good day.

Kind Regards,

Shannon iTunes Store Customer Support"''

Therefore, based on the information from Apple above, the statement about a refund is not accurate.

Mcbjr (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)mcbjr 2/25/08


 * I don't see what the inaccuracy is. You bought an iPod touch on January 2. Your letter never told you that you do not receive a refund. The letter basically didn't answer your question. Groink (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Linux, please
An SGML comment directs:


 * Do not discuss hacks in this section, such as jailbreaking or other work-arounds to use and program the iPod touch on a non-Mac OS X/Windows platform. Only Apple official information.

My main computer runs Linux. I'm mildly interested in this Apple toy, and if I bought it I'd want to use it with Linux. If it didn't work with Linux I wouldn't buy it. I'd guess that the likeliest "non-Mac OS X/Windows platform" in this context is Linux. But not only is there no mention of Linux in this part of the article, there's none anywhere. Is useful information about use with Linux so very much less encyclopedic than regurgitated Apple publicity about use with Mac OS X and the World's Favorite Operating System? -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what I don't understand... Why people want to know what a device CANNOT do? How do you scope something like this out, and WHERE does it end? If there is any support for non Windows/Mac OS X operating systems, it will be an unofficial hack. When you read Apple's requirements, you must read it from two directions: what it tells you it can do, and assume that it doesn't do it if it isn't mentioned. If we cover hacks like Linux, then we should also cover BeOS, OS/2, AmigaDOS, and any other operating system people are actually using right now. And I wholeheartedly disagree with you regarding encyclopedic information. When reading about the Ford Model-T, it does not mention whether it'll run on unleaded gas or if you can connect your iPod to it. A blow torch does not mention that it is dangerous to use it to solder a diode. If you're looking for hacks, you should be Googling for this information, rather than expecting an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to cover it. World's favorite OS? How POV can you get???? Groink (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for other people, but I want to know what it can do. There is no simple dichotomy between (a) what a company chooses to support and advertise and (b) "an unofficial hack", especially when one bears in mind the dangerous/antisocial/unsavory connotations of "hack" ("hack into a Pentagon computer", etc.). Are BeOS, OS/2 or AmigaDOS used to pump data into this device by more than a vanishingly small minority of people? I shouldn't have thought so, but if I'm wrong and at there is clear evidence that at least one is widely used, a brief mention of this seems entirely appropriate to me. There'd be no hacking of the pod involved: it would sit there, pretty much oblivious of the identity of the program with which it was interacting.


 * Your would-be parallels with the flivver and blowtorch seem bizarre to me: anyone contemplating driving one of the relatively (when compared with any model of Ipod) rare flivvers would probably know about the issues involved in juicing it up, and any sane and sober person with a mental age of ten would know about the incompatibility of blowtorches and diodes. Meanwhile, Ipods are used by a great number of people with computers, and Linux is used on a great number of computers.


 * Further, I did google for information. Doing so wasn't easy, because of course there are squillions of hits. About the first thing I landed on was a site about the installation of Linux in Ipods. This could reasonably be called hacking, but anyway it's unrelated to the matter of finding out what to do with Linux on a separate computer in order to have that computer talk to an Ipod (with its native OS undisturbed). Which I point out as an illustration of how hard it can be for novices to google for computer-related information: it seems that you must already be well on the way to an answer before you even know the right search keywords to use.


 * I haven't looked through the history of this article. I can hazily conceive that there might be a good reason for not mentioning Linux in it, though I find this very hard to imagine. What stuns me is the instruction Only Apple official information. Should an article on the Ford Excursion have an analogous warning: Only Ford official information? Or Taser: Only Taser International official information? By all means, feel free to distinguish between (a) what's claimed by the company (and perhaps backed up by warranty) and (b) what isn't (and what might even void the warranty): such a distinction is informative and very likely helpful. However, WP is an encyclopedia and neither censored nor merely a conduit for corporate press releases.


 * As for comments on PoVness, I hadn't heard that there was any rule against expressing a PoV in a talk page. You are welcome to express yours, and indeed you seem to have done so when you wrote earlier I would expect Linux fanboys, anti-iTunes store foes and others to start hacking away at the section to fit their agendas. (I've just now looked through the archive page for the term "Linux".) This kind of thing is all jolly good talk-page fun; but if anyone's interested, my username comes from my non-original hair color (I'm no longer a "boy", and I hadn't thought of referring to anyone here as "Apple fanboys" or similar), and my personal agenda is to find some small, light, affordable device that lets me surf the web, display JPEGs, temporarily store a number of JPEGs, and move JPEGs to and from my Linux box. (I'm not interested in playing music.) Meanwhile, my WP agenda here (far more important) is to help make the article more informative, while remaining balanced (and as for balance, I fully realize that if I bought one of these things I'd be an atypical owner). I'd hope your agenda would be the same. -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dumbing, and owning
I'm chastened by this edit, which was a perfect reversion of my previous edit. Now, I'm all for reducing dumbness, but pray tell me how (to take the very simplest of examples) purchase and purchaser are less dumb than buy and buyer? Or again, how is has the capability to [verb] less dumb than can [verb]? Etc etc.

Incidentally, This later edit has the odd summary You're trying to use Wikipedia as a soap box for the pro-hackers of the world. I wonder about this assertion of motivation: is it really not possible that Pyriomaniaque was trying, perhaps in a clumsy way, to make the article more informative?

If I were to add my own warning in an SGML comment, it might be '''&lt;!-- Please reread WP:OWN from time to time. --&gt;'''. Hoary (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No response to the comments above, and perhaps this is part of the reason why two (or more?) other editors have worked on the prose. In the last few hours, I've joined them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How I've reduced precision
Before this edit of mine (as I write this, the latest), we read: The software upgrade is available for current iPod touch owners via iTunes download for US$19.99, £12.99 in the UK or AU$24.99 in Australia (plus footnote). I've changed that to: The software upgrade is available for current iPod touch owners via iTunes download for US$20, £13 in the UK or AU$25 in Australia (plus unaltered footnote).

I've thereby deliberately introduced an imprecision of less than one part in one thousand. Why? Well, the "&mdash; ninety-nine" pricing strikes me as mere marketing gimmickry. Apple's free to employ it, but we're free to ignore it. Moreover, what I've written is correct: "20" is a truthful rounding of "19.99" (whereas "20.00" would be [rather trivially, I think] untrue). Others here are free to disagree, and to revert. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. It may be marketing gimmickry but just about every single company does it, and I think most other Wikipedia articles reflect the correct price for things even if they do have the '.99' bit, so I don't see why this article should be any different. Jackster (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right: there is indeed no reason why this article should be any different. But it happens to be the first one I've edited that had this ".99" nonsense (and a lot of it too). If you're going to cut crap from WP, you have to start somewhere; I started here (and was candid about it). &para; Do you think that "$19.99" is significantly more informative than "$20"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts... If it were up to me and I thought listing the prices was helpful at all, I would not round them off. As for the ".99" being nonsense, I agree spot on with Hoary that it is nonsense. I also think the rounding hides this nonsense along with the context of marketing flurry which goes along with this product. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand my chum DA pipes up that "19.99" announces to anyone who's interested that yes, Apple used this tried and true sales gimmick (see Sutherland, Irrationality), whereas "20" might well suggest that the company daringly did not, a wrong suggestion. &para; Perhaps ideally WP should have a sitewide policy of rounding up "95", "98", and "99" prices, and announcing as much. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear enough (sorry!), I meant to spin it like DA: Rounding suggests the company is doing something daringly rational in its prices, which it is not. Rounding is hence misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand the logic: If I understand you correctly, you're saying "it's nonsense, so let's keep it" As Wiki is not a directory, we are discouraged from putting retail prices except when they are historically relevant. Use of the units after the decimal place appears to matter only from the sales (price pointing) perspective for any given product, but generally the simplicity of $13 over $12.99 within wikipedia is a clear advantage, and blows away the manufacturers' psychological lie. Just because there's nonsense in another article, doesn't mean this one should throw curve balls as well. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The content's not nonsense, one was saying the vendors' endless habit of pricing stuff at x.99 is nonsense. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bouncing leftwards. [Aargh, Gwen, all those colons shoot a discussion rightwards all too quickly.] &para; It's nonsense and it's not nonsense. Let's assume for a moment that we do need to specify the price: $19.99 is only trivially different from $20.00, four significant figures seems extraordinarily precise, and all in all $20 seems a decent approximation. But no matter how many of us laugh at mass stupidity, the fact is that people do process $19.99 as costing one sawbuck and part of another one as opposed to two of them; Apple would be nuts not to take advantage of the fact that human brains are wired this way. &para; I don't think that $20 would be misleading. But yes, we should probably skip the prices altogether. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry about the colons, guess I was too lazy to count them all and add one more :/ I do support skipping the prices altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone earlier brought up pricing that has historical significance. Not only do I agree with this, but there are three Apple prices that meets this criteria. First is the 99-cents for a song on iTunes. Jobs set this price on purpose in that the digits $.99 is eye appealing to most consumers. Apple was also the first major music seller to actually set a price on music - so much so that the $.99 has been criticized heavily throughout the industries for various reasons (the music companies are not making enough on each song, it is too expensive, etc.) And Apple took the 99-cents and even tried the same marketing methodology in Europe (99 pounds, 99 euros, etc.) In short, this price did set a mark for other music sellers to use in their pricing. And that effect is historical, and is something worthy fo documenting on Wikipedia.


 * The other two Apple prices: $666.66 for the Apple I (the Satan link), and $9,995 for the Apple Lisa (for some reason the price is burned into everyone's heads, although most Apple historians like myself do rattle off the price as $10,000.) Other than them, I wholeheartedly agree with the others that the price for an iPod touch does not have a place in this article. Groink (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you meant £0.99 and €0.99, or 0.99 pounds, 0.99 euros, or 99 pence and 99 euro cents :-) Either that or you have some very dodgy sources :P Skittle (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, .99 is correct. Man, 99 euros for a track would be expensive. Groink (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I still see no point to this. Apple's recommended retail price for the products are simply Apple's recommended retail price for their products. I don't see why Wikipedia should reflect the incorrect price of £13 when it could easily reflect the correct price of £12.99. You may disagree with the company making that the price, but I'm sure a lot of people disagree with things which are reported on wikipedia and they don't go round changing them. Jackster (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it would be possible to write the article without listing exact prices, thus making it sound like the commercial it already resembles. For example, you could write in the SDK section that the applications feature is available to iPod Touch owners "for a fee" or, to still betray a bit of bias, "for a small fee" Josejuan05 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Starbucks
Is this service available in US only? I am not sure of its availability elsewhere in the world. Either way, i think it could be mentioned. - Jaydentaku


 * Read it again. Remember now, Wikipedia articles do not include every little detail - especially the NOT information. As with any other resource, always consult the cited resource that is located at the end of the sentence (in this case, Apple's web site.) Groink (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the time it took you to pontificate the matter, this edit could have been made.

I think this is quite important, not everybody (like me) is an expert when it comes to wikipedia and they, like me will operate this website as they would any other. As such, I see no harm in clarifying something, after all that is one of the purposes of wikipedia, is it not? Anyway, I take on board what you say, you are quite right. However, on balance of judgement, I belive that the impact of this addition will be proportionate to the benifits that flow from it. I see no reason then, why it cannot be there, so I have added it. I think thats fair. Jaydentaku (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Higher processor clock speed?
I've noticed, that with the latest software update for my iPod Touch, everything seems to run better and faster, more like how an iPhone runs. It seems to me that they clocked the CPU to be the same as the iPhone. Also, it was noted that all applications for the iPhone, written with the SDK would be compatible with the iPod Touch. This would not be possible if the CPU were clocked lower, as it would greatly reduce the framerate of games. I also noted that some websites, such as Facebook now run much faster, more like I would suppose it was intended to be. I am aware that original research is not permitted, but I was just putting my observations out, in case if anybody might want to research this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da-Bomb77766 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

- I think the clock speed of the iPod Touch and iPhone have always been the same? Jackster (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

incomplete
this article should have a link to the iphone sdk, and a list of changes in the firmware versions. and the upcoming firmware 2 --200.121.134.195 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want the links, add 'em. Remember, it's Wikipedia! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.109.27 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GPU
No information on the GPU. The SDK provides clear information about the GPU type and specs.

This article is very out-of-date post-SDK, so why are anon edits turned off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.226.227 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the anons constantly vandalize this article. FWIW, I don't see the logic in staying anon. I mean, I'd rather create an account and edit with it than to have the entire world see my IP address and DoS attack me because he disagreed with an edit I made. Groink (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the reason why the iPod touch is weaker in content than the iPhone is that the two devices are virtually identical regarding software development. There's already a separate article for the iPhone SDK, as well as another separate article for the firmware updates. It is also a fact that a large majority of developers are iPhone owners and not iPod touch, so logically there would be more focus on updating the content on the iPhone article than here. So rather than duplicating the same information on both the iPhone and iPod touch articles, let's just add wikilinks with these two to the SDK and firmware articles. Groink (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)