Jump to content

Talk:HTC Touch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enhanced Touch

[edit]

I'm not too sure about the reference to an Enhanced Touch. Here is a screen shot of my phone (purchased in the UK in January 2008) that indicates the additional memory but maintains the Elf designation. There is a lot of confusion on discussion fora about Touch/Elf/P3450, and it would be great if something definite could be written here. --Norman21 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Screenshot of my phone no. 1
    Screenshot of my phone no. 1
  • Screenshot of my phone no. 2
    Screenshot of my phone no. 2
Perhaps it could be described as the same device but with more memory (like the different versions of the iPhone). Can anyone get any references that would support this? Norman21, can you find 'P3452' anywhere in your device information or on any packaging or in the user manual, or can we get a source for that? Dark-Fire (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone comparison

[edit]

I am not happy with the recent removal of the brief comparison of the Touch with the iPhone because it was 'POV'. The NPOV policy says: 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)' Also, the POV help article says: 'What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs.' I can show that the fact that the Touch is considered to be an iPhone killer is a significant point of view: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. All of the articles linked to describe the HTC Touch as an iPhone killer. For such a significant point of view not to be on Wikipedia is surely a great loss? Dark-Fire 10:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit for the moment, so if you feel the iPhone comparison should be removed, justify youself here. Dark-Fire 10:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of View does not refer to the Wikipedia editor's point of view, it refers to all points of view, even from the masses. Besides the fact that my opinion is that "killer" is a terrible word to use in the article, I don't see any other articles that now claim, in the introduction, to have "killed" another product. I changed the wording to point out the obvious reasons why they will be in direct competition, but lets please keep out the "killer" part. Also, I feel that you have an aggressive tone ("justify yourself"?) and pasted an impossibly-long list of sources. Incidentally, I looked at the first few links and I don't see why you claim that each source considers the Touch "to be an iPhone killer"
I am frustrated that these articles just seem to be a result of a Google search. Please don't take edits to your contributions personally. The best way I've found to deal with that is instead of lashing out, use the magic of writing to find middle ground. You steamrolled this one point and got defensive about it. Edit: I just noticed you didn't revert my change, so I guess this was not needed. I am posting it because I worked too long on it. —Fitch 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. It was only trying to point out that the Touch is intended to compete with the iPhone. The articles themselves were not meant to be read - clearly it would be impossible difficult to actually make a phone that would make the iPhone look obselete. They were only intended to point out the fact that 'the masses' are quite happily comparing the iPhone and Touch feature-for-feature. Sorry about the agressive tone, but I am used to having to defend small points in articles like Scarriff (somebody seems to have a problem with the fact that it is a town). By the way, as you have noticed, I did just do a Google search for those articles. Anyway, in conclusion, I'm happy with the way the article looks at the moment - it just needs to be expanded more. Dark-Fire 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


it seems to me that an article about the htc touch, should be, about the htc touch. sounds like the ideas youre trying to include should be in a cnet review, not in an encyclopedia. i found this page because i wanted to know more about an htc product, not because i wanted to know the opinion of a few journalists who are paid to sell a concept of a war between companies. i mean, whats next, is the article about the television going to reflect why it was a "radio killer", with, of course, quotations from some article written in the mid 1900s? and googling the htc touch did result in a few sites showing the comparison, but were grossly outnumbered by ones that did not. but hey if you want to argue your point out and keep it on there, thats cool. im over it. robkehr

For the last time, I was only pointing out that the Touch is very similar to, and will be competing directly with, the Apple iPhone. The articles were evidence of the fact that the two phones are being compared a lot, and I suspect that many people will find themselves trying to choose between a Touch and iPhone, hence the relevance of a brief comparison in an encyclopedia. Dark-Fire 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the recent and undiscussed edits to the article: The video at the bottom of this page demonstrates how the Touch is considered to be one of the main competitors, if not the main competitor, of the iPhone. I think that a brief comparison, consisting of two sentences, is therefore crucial to have in an encyclopedia. As it has been pointed out, perhaps a brief section in the iPhone article, comparing the iPhone to its competitors, should be written. Dark-Fire 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the iphone is not the standard to which all these new devices have been modeled after... the iphone was actually released after the touch and the LG prada, the latter of which is even more similar IF thats a comparison you want to make. however consumer comparisons dont seem to fit well in an informative encyclopedia. there is no mention of the touch or the prada on the iphones page, so why should there be one made on the latter? the consumer comparison sounds like it should be included on the discussion page, not on the actual article. this is not a forum for consumer comparisons. so far it seems the majority of editors to this article agree that the comparison should not be included on the article. however it seems to fit very well on the discussion page. robkehr

and before anything is said about the lg prada having a section about the iphone, please note that there is a possible lawsuit in connection with the section. the section is not based on a consumer comparison, its based on a historical event in which LG formally stated that apple copied a format, it is not just a comparison between the operating systems and the layout. robkehr

Dark-Fire (Mike Hogan)- You're personal website, (as linked to from your wikipedia profile)contains many refrences to the touch, and the iphone, stating your personal opinions and showing you clearly have bias. While you are free to do this on your homepage, please keep your opinions and personal comparisons out of wikipedia articles. If comparisons are made about products, you can never ensure that these comparisons will be fare and unbiased, therefore, comparisons of products are best left for product discusions sites, and not an encyclopedia sites, such as wikipedia. please just post facts. Opionions, even published ones, are nothing more then opinions. pm

I have several points to make. Firstly, I have never used my website to backup my claims. Such an action would be a breach of Wikipedia policy. However, I accept the view of the majority of the editors and will leave the iPhone out of the article. I would like to point out that the comparison in the article could hardly be biased as it was only two sentences pointing out the similar features of the phones (all facts - no opinion). I would also like to point out that the Touch is much more similar to the iPhone than the Prada (see the video at the bottom of the BBC article on the iPhone). My personal opinion is that you are vandalising Wikipedia, and I refuse to have anything to do with this article from now on unless this vandalism stops - I already have too many articles to defend from vandals. Dark-Fire 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no need to be upset, this is wikipedia's all about, the majority obviously disagrees with you, there is no "winner" or "loser". and in retrospect continuously editing a page to include information that is felt by a majority to be incorrect would be considered vandalism. please familiarize your self with WP:VAN, and good luck. Robkehr 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not upset - I just don't see any point in editing an article which I am not allowed to expand with relevant information. The majority seemed to agree with me until yesterday. I would also like to point out that I have only reverted the article three times - the first time was because the argument for removing the information was rubbish, the second and third times were because no argument was provided. All three edits that I reverted were by people without accounts, making me much more inclined to treat them as vandalism. I have not reverted any edits discussed here. I think you should carefully consider why you want to accuse somebody of being a vandal before accusing them. I feel that I have acted responsibly by reverting random edits and simply abandoning the article because I disagree with how it is being written, rather than continuing to argue. Dark-Fire 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Surely a brief comparison is needed now? Dark-Fire 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aha? to what? Robkehr 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted shortly before you made your comment. One of the parts of the article listed the iPhone competitors. I will keep an eye out for similar articles. Dark-Fire 11:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article you linked to was titled "iphoney"? It's pretty obvious why that was deleted, and the fact that it was deleted, is testament to how your edits to this artcile are innappropriate as well. PM

1. Why haven't you moved on yet? 2. Why are you never signed in? 3. I actually think there's a fair argument for having that page, but the version that was deleted was very bad so I am not too concerned. There were a few potential things in the article that the article could have been written about, but instead they were all listed and only very briefly explained. Anyway, continuing this is not achieving anything so please stop - if you want to contribute to the article, please do so. Dark-Fire 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone article links to the HTC Touch article in its 'See Also' section. Can the HTC Touch article have a link back in a similar section? Surely you'll allow something with a logical argument as simple as that? Dark-Fire 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iCrap's a copycat. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons?

[edit]

This is an encyclopedia - not somewhere people should look for pros and cons for products. Somebody get rid of the 'Pros' and 'Cons' sections. Dark-Fire 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the next section for the solution. Dark-Fire 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Review

[edit]

This is NOT a review website, I'm removing the Pros and cons and non-neutral stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoRicen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2007 BST

Thanks, although you clearly didn't read my request... Dark-Fire 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Somebody click here to revert today's vandalism (personal views and unsourced claims) - I'm still refusing to touch the article. Dark-Fire 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nobody cares. get over yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 July 2007 BST

Not using my handy link means the article has not been correctly reverted - somebody needs to put back '**5-way directional block (including action button)' into the list of input features and somebody needs to remove '**2.5G' from the list of connectivity features. I would also ask that Robkehr stops using his IP address to make himself seem like more people than he is during arguments and to make rubbish comments so they aren't associated with his user account. I'm pretty sure that you're breaching a Wikipedia policy (if you continue, I'll find out which one). Dark-Fire 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heres my ip for ya! 131.50.151.8 is someone who works across the base, report it, i dont care, its not my ip. 24.255.43.239 00:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) aka Robkehr[reply]

Really? You still made the same comment, before reverting it. Dark-Fire 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yea i made it, but thot it was rude, so i deleted it, so my co-worker added it back, because you truly do need to get over yourself. but im over it. no more fuel for your fire mike. Robkehr 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it makes sense. Sorry for accusing you of messing. Annoy your co-worker for me. Any comments on my suggestion back in the 'iPhone comparison' section? Dark-Fire 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate removal of content

[edit]

Removing the whole description of the TouchFLO interface and trying to pass it off as merely getting rid of the iPhone comparison is utterly inappropriate. Regards, --Asteriontalk 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am unable to leave a message on the talk page of the user who repeatly removes verifiable and sourced content, I am inviting him to explain himself here before taking further action. Regards, --Asteriontalk 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why should there be a line comparing the touch to the iphone? theres nothing on the iphone page comparing it to the touch. and comparing the touch to the iphone seems to be saying that the iphone is the model to which all touch interface phones have been based off of and is therefore the control. and i thot your reference links were broken but then i realized you referenced articles from newspapers in the uk.Robkehr 13:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not really following the developments, but I am now in a country (Ireland) which has such poor broadband penetration rates that the mobile phone companies have decided to enter the broadband market with HSDPA. Anyway, I have several points that I would like to briefly make. Firstly, the iPhone is not the control, but is undoubtedly the most famous touchscreen phone, and a brief comparison is therefore useful to those millions people who have not heard of the Touch but have heard of the iPhone. Secondly, probably because I am based in the British Isles, I have never ever seen the iPhone mentioned without the Touch also being mentioned apart from the initial iPhone announcement at that Apple conference thing (I can't remember what it was called), which is why I am amazed by the opposition to the iPhone being mentioned. Thirdly, and finally, I think Robkehr should stop opposing the mention of the iPhone - opposing such a logical connection between products wastes a lot of time and, as a result, the Touch article has nowhere near as much information now as it should do. Perhaps Robkehr should write the comparison to the Touch in the iPhone article, thus finishing the argument. Unfortunately, I doubt I will be online for a while, so I'll have to let this argument continue without me. Providing the iPhone stays in the article, I will start adding more information to the article again when I get some proper internet access. Dark-Fire 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


i'll stop opposing it when the touch is mentioned on the prada page and the iphone's page, and not just as a wikilink. and when the ps3 is mentioned on the xbox 360 page, or when the sanyo katana is mentioned on the razr page... these have all been compared much more thant these two phones yet no mention on their respective articles. Robkehr 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, because the iPhone is far more well known, a brief comparison of the Touch and, to a lesser extent, the Prada with the iPhone is relevant. However, that does not mean that all of the phones should be mentioned in all of the articles - comparing the iPhone to the Touch in the iPhone article, for example, is pointless because, as I said, a lot of people will have heard of or know about the iPhone but will not have heard of the Touch. Therefore, doing any more than providing a wikilink to the article about the Touch in the iPhone article would be a waste of time and a lot of people reading the iPhone article would probably be confused by the brief comparison with an apparently random phone. At least one of your examples above is flawed (I have never heard of the 'Sanyo Katana' and therefore cannot verify the second example, although the fact that I only know about one of the two products in question makes the fact that they are often compared seem unlikely). I've just had a read of the Xbox 360 article, and the PS3 is mentioned a lot: 'to be released for the Xbox 360 the same day as its PlayStation 3 counterpart', 'it competes with Sony's PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii', 'both of its competitors, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii' and 'it features games from other consoles, such as the PlayStation's Castlevania: Symphony of the Night'. So, now I have tackled both of the things you said you would require before you would stop your opposition - comparisons do not need to be reciprocated (and if they can be reciprocated without confusing people who use Wikipedia, they probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all) and the PS3 is mentioned in the Xbox 360 article. What more do I have to do to end your opposition? Dark-Fire 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


i've added a mention of the touch to the iphone page. Robkehr 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprint HTC Touch?

[edit]

I noticed there's no mention of the CDMA touch which has improved RAM and a processor, 3G, but no wifi. Should it be a new article or added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoSmiley (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're refering to this phone. If that is the case, I think it can be covered by a new section in the HTC Touch article or perhaps just briefly mentioned in the introduction, like the other slightly upgraded version of the HTC Touch. By the way, can somebody please write the articles for the HTC Touch Dual and the HTC Touch Cruise? It would be nice for the entire Touch family to have a decent set of articles, for many reasons which could be explained in an article on the family itself. Dark-Fire 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date?

[edit]

Someone needs to add it. I have no clue when it came out. This should provide an easy comparison of release dates. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (HTC Touch 3G)

[edit]

HTC Touch 3G is within the same phone series, with small changes, and should be consolidated into this article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have a Asia (Hong Kong) Touch 3G and I have two friends that have the Asia Touch (original). They I similar in size and functionality however they look quite different and operate at substantially different speeds. The 3G version is much quicker then the older one. The 3G version looks polished and looks like a completed design whereas the original Touch looks and feels much less polished. They are different phones.Ijetdriver (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That they're different is not a reason to not merge them. We merge the vast majority of phone series. The most obvious, and compelling example is iPhone and iPhone 3G. You'll notice the redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The iPhone 3G is a completely different case, only related by the similar name change - it is an update to the original iPhone (most of the changes were internal), whereas the Touch 3G is of a completely different external and internal design to the Touch. The Elfin and Vogue were, however, updates to the original Touch are therefore covered in the Touch article. If you're going to merge the Touch and Touch 3G articles, you technically should merge the articles of a lot of members of the HTC Touch Family (Touch Diamond2 + Touch Diamond, Touch Pro2 + Touch Pro, HD2 + Touch HD) - while they're all different models, the former in each case is clearly intended to be a successor of the latter. The fact that the mobile phone infobox lets you specify a successor/predecessor implies that merging all of those articles is wrong. Dark-Fire (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. Touch 3G has absolutely different hardware.18:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HTC_Touch&oldid=1223935564"