Talk:PinePhone

Early discussions (2019–Aug 2020)
Hi,. I'm not quite sure why you removed this as biassed. The PinePhone's a lot cheaper, and lack some of the features of the more expensive Librem 5; this doesn't mean the PinePhone is bad, just it's a different trade-off. If there is anything specific you want me to fix, please say so; I'll do my best. If you think the information is inaccurate or incomplete, please correct or extend it, ideally supplying sources. Incidentally, do you know of any open-licensed photos of the PinePhone? HLHJ (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Im a different person, but that section seems to break with Wikipedia convention for how articles on specific products are written, and gives the impression of an ad (though that a bigger problem with this whole page). We do not need a feature comparison with every other similar phone on the market. For example, the iPhone articles do not mention any other phones. If you want to make a phone comparison, I think it should be a seperate article, perhaps titled "Comparison of non-android Linux phones" or something, similar to this page: Comparison of computer-aided design software Also, price lists are generally discouraged. Unless the Pinephone has, in some way affected the Librem 5, and you can find a source for that, I think it would be best to either delete that section or create a new page and move it there. Multilocus (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A note in case this comes up again: Since these are the first two mainline Linux phones, the PinePhone is nearly always considered in comparison to the Librem 5 in the Linux community. While all these points are understandable in general, with the PinePhone being sometimes almost perceived more as an alternative to the Librem than as its own product, I think that as long as there only are those two phones, there is no point in a separate page, all the while comparative information is a primary interest of readers seeking out this article. Korn (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

When I came here first, this page was largely about the deficiencies of PinePhone in relation to Librem5. As the pinephone is already shipping and having users, I try to add information into the page about the pinephone, and i do not consider the comparison that important, esp if it just needs to sound like all the ways in which the Librem is superior. "unlike the Librem 5, its cellular modem is not replaceable." this might be interesting to Librem ppl, but as the end result provides the same freedoms, the pine community does not see this as very interesting as far as I can see, also due to the price difference. They are both FOSS devices, and there is room for them both. If there is a comparison needed for the librem users, please leave it neutral, and not just on this page. There is room for both on this 'pedia :) I removed some review info, as the quotes did not reflect the tone of the article. Barbabee (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Also, in the Linux communities I know, there is no confusion between the PinePhone and Librem5, as the PinePhone is currently actively used, and most ppl have never seen a Librem5 in the wild, even though some did buy them. (I would love to see one someday, I love the idea of more than one device to work on and thank the Purism team a lot for their software work.)


 * As I recall, when I wrote this, almost all the available sources were comparisons of the specifications of these two phones, because no-one had actually seen one. This has now changed, because both have shipped and been reviewed. I'd be happy for this article to change to reflect that (the comparison "half the Flash memory storage" is also outdated). I did try to make the comparison neutral, and am glad to have it modified where I failed. Obviously there are advantages of the Pinephone, apart from price; open-source boot software, guaranteed 5-year production run, and standard battery, for instance. I did make a seperate comparison (well, someone else did and I expanded it) at List of open-source mobile phones. Perhaps this should be split out to make Comparison of open-source mobile phones, as I agree with Korn that many readers may be looking for comparison information. We are not writing this article solely for the Pine community or the Librem community, or people with any point of view; we must consider the information that any reader might be looking for. Obviously the isolation of the modem is of great interest to some people and of no interest to others (the same could be said of price, though I'd guess most people would care about that large a price difference). I agree that paraphrasing the review would be more suitable. HLHJ (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disputed
This page talks in a overly positive tone about the Pinephone, leading to it looking like promotional material. It also relies too much on the pinephone wiki as a source, which might be causing the first problem.

Some examples of this problem: To resolve the problem, unsourced statements should either be sourced or removed, and some tonal changes should be made. Multilocus (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It claims the phone to be the first phone to do "blank" several times in the article, with, as far as I can tell, no source specifically mentioning that, which violates wikipedia's rule against original research.
 * This page has too many comparisons to the librem 5 and other phones, while, on Wikipedia, most product comparisons are generally put on a separate page. The comparison section should be moved to a new page.
 * This page lacks sources for a lot of its claims about the reasons for why things exist with the phone.
 * The tone of the article seems extremely positive, but I might just be misinterpreting some of the grammatical errors in it.
 * What of that do you find to be the case in the current version? I'd like to remove the template. Korn (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is too much comparison on this page, as I think does . List of open-source mobile phones has a comparison table, so that would be a good place to put some of that comparative material. It would make sense to make statements about modem removability etc. without drawing a direct comparison. Most of the coverage of this phone is fairly positive, but there are some criticisms (it's not got cutting-edge hardware, the DIP switches are hard to access; that sort of thing) which could be incorporated for balance. It would be good to use some of the more recent reviews as sources where possible, though for technical specifications then Pinephone is probably OK as a source. I'd be OK with things like "Pinephone stated that this was because..." cited to Pinephone, on issues other sources have discussed. Barbaree, do you have any good third-party sources that could be included? HLHJ (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For tone, perhaps asking the WP:Guild of Copyeditors to have a look would help? HLHJ (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Beta Edition" the same thing as the "Mobian Community Edition" ??
or is this 'Beta Edition' not listed in the chart yet https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-beta-edition-linux-smartphone/?v=5d611c405f6a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.149.218 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Superfluous battery images without context or non-standard info
There are 4 battery images in the article without any context, or any non-industry-standard battery info. These images could be interesting for a product-wiki, but not for a general description of the phone to non-owners. Or at least they should have some description of the unique things in the image. They have been removed before as being superfluous, but were re-added, with no real explanation or discussion in this page. I would like to remove them, so if there are reasons not to, please react here. I will remove them if there is no info in the coming week. Barbabee (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

How many of each Limited Edition were produced?
Given the article raises the topic of "limited editions" for early models, it would be great if this article reflected how many of each were made and sold. I hope someone can find a reference for that info and update the article accordingly? --Danimations (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)