Talk:iPhone/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about IPhone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Developer support? SDK?

OK, I've been digging around fruitlessly, trying to figure out if this is a closed platform (like the iPod), or an open platform (like MacOS X).

So far, I found no indication as to whether third-party developers can write applications for the iPhone. If anybody knows, that would be nice to include in the article. emk (talk)

From the TUAW (www.tuaw.com) they claim "The iPhone will run OS X, and be capable of running desktop-class applications". The phone runs OS X so I would and the ability to run 'widgets' - what I haven't found out is whether or not the widgets are iPhone-specific or whether it can run the standard widgets already available for OS X. ny156uk 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is very pretty"? Is it a enciclopedic notation? Maitreya

iPhone release features Wikipedia screenshot

Apple's iPhone video on its website features an iPhone bookmarked for Wikipedia, and a screenshot of the iPod article. Very cool. - Nunh-huh 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice. :) Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) - oops, on reviewing, the link is to the iPod article. But still cool. :) - Nunh-huh 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice of them to give us a shoutout. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And here it is: Image:Wikipedia on IPhone.jpg - Nunh-huh 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, fair use images only in the article namespace, not in talk pages. -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How absurd. - Nunh-huh 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can fit it into the article? Sfacets 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course we could, but the idea was to present it here first for discussion. That's what talk pages are for. There's an actual rule that fair use images are not for user pages; if there's an actual rule against placing such images on talk pages, it's absurd, because presenting an image to be discussed is an actual fair use. If it's decided to use the image in the article, we might want to photoshop the "dot" on it out (it shows the location of the imaginary finger on the touchscreen, and I doubt that it appears on the actual screen of the iPhone). - Nunh-huh 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be cropped to remove the title, but photoshopping out the dot would be overkill, the dot doesn't distract from the overall image. When the article gets a little longer (ie there is more space available) we could insert a modified version Sfacets 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are some people so sensitive to fair use and copyright? It's not like Wikipedia is profiting from the image being on either the article or the talk page. 139.168.56.35 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After a while people becaome rule nazis. That or the bureaucracy makes them go nuts. Whatever comes first. ; ) Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if we aren't sensitive to copyrights, then we'll face lawsuits that could destroy the project. Proper adherence and handling to these issues protect the project. It has nothing to do with 'rule nazis'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Developer Program

We must cover developing applications for the Apple iPhone, including "syncing them" from iTunes. This is a very important part of the Apple strategy to have the iTunes "vending machine" ( similar to the BREW Qualcomm model) feeding applications for the Apple iPhone (and the iPod) 75.208.152.191 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no information available on the apple site for developing applications for the ipod or iPhone. There now are several games for the iPod available, developed by external developers but there isn't any information on how to become an iPod or iPhone application developer. Anyone know something about this? 75.210.58.197 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For now Apple's position is that there are *NO* third party applications and therefore no developers. This must be clarified in the body of the article. It is a choice that Apple is making, right or wrong. It is a different choice as all other smart phones have a developer program. It must be emphasized and not burried in the specification. This is an important part of how the iPhone is differentiated from other smartphones and camera phones. In fact over time it make become the biggest differentiaton. 75.209.23.23 13:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gmaps

is the ability to do Google Maps, etc, really a special feature due to a special agreement with Google? I presumed it was just part of the normal web browsing capabilities, and that it can also do MapQuest or Yahoo or any online service (but they just chose to feature Google). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - see now they have a dedicate Gmaps application built in. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording, but could be better... Sfacets 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GPS

I don't think it has GPS. someone confirm and edit the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.89.171 (talk • contribs).

The presentation suggested that it has some sort of location awareness, but I think that if it had GPS, Jobs would have explicitly said GP-freakin-S. I speculate they may be using an API that Cingular has that offers rough radio triangulation from cell towers. It's accurate to within a few hundred feet instead of a couple feet like GPS, but cheaper to implement in hardware, if I understand correctly. I put this speculation here not because it belongs in the article, but because it might help avoid a rash of helpful "IT HAS GPSSSS!!!11!!eleven!" edits to the main article. Official word from Apple shouldn't be far behind, I'm certain this is something they'll get a lot of questions about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in with a citation from MSNBC. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when they talk about location awareness they refer to the fact that it senses when you are holding it to your ear (like a phone) and turns off the screen to save power and prevent accidental botton press with your cheek. Biglig 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nowhere in the keynote did Steve say anything about GPS capabilities, and MSNBC seems to be the only one reporting that it does (Microsoft anyone?) I have made changes accordingly. Sfacets 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the MSNBC source is actually from AP. CNN ran basically the same article off of AP. My personal impression is the same as others: I think AP's reporter mistook the google map demonstrations for GPS. 65.220.90.243 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I thought there might be location awareness was that the Keynote had him demonstrating Google Maps, and there was an off-the-cuff mention on the live keynote feed about it knowing where he was because it had the Moscone center already set. A friend re-watched the video of the presentation last night, and it appears to have been bookmarked, so it's unlikely that it has anything like GPS or triangulation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

""The iPhone is really going to revolutionize the world as Steve described it," Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak said following Jobs's keynote speech today. (Wozniak, wearing a bike helmet, had been cornered on his Segway scooter by reporters and Apple fans outside Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, and was answering questions.)

Wozniak had two regrets about the device: that it will come with 8 Gbytes of memory rather than 40 Gbytes and that it had no built-in GPS hardware." [1] TheNewMinistry 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless?

What on earth does this mean (under the 'specifications')? iPod portion features Cover Flow interface and 3-D effects Please delineate it there properly! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.137.58 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Beyond 3G? Phone is not even 3G!

The iPhone is simply a 2G (or 2.5G due to EDGE) phone with Wi-fi (802.11b/g[[2]]). Why say it's "Beyond 3G"? The definition given for "Beyond 3G" in the article is for data rates of 100Mbps or more. 802.11g goes up to 54mbps only. Marcosleal 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but Jobs mentions in the keynote that they "plan to make 3G phones and all sorts of amazing things in the future" (50min20sec on the Keynote stream). Also, if the WiFi is Pre-N, then that could possibly reach 100mbps speeds. I've heard some stuff about a Data standard that Cingular is rolling out that's supposedto be way faster than EDGE too, but I don't know much about that. 24.184.116.156 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be HSDPA, most likely. However, until such features are added to the iPhone, it's still only a 2.5G phone. -- Kesh 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Slow down!

Folks, remember: The World Will Not End Tomorrow. We're not here to score points, or scoop each other. Slow down, take your time and fact-check before making an edit. I'm as excited about this as anyone else, but we want to make sure we're putting out a good article, instead of a lot of random edits. -- Kesh 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fluctuation

Hey, I'm trying to read this article and it keeps changing every second! 205.174.22.25 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit crazy. See my post above yours. Folks need to slow down and just let the facts settle rather than posting changes willy-nilly. -- Kesh 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be same to say that those changes make a good news article but a bad encyclopedia entry? :) Sfacets 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Safari Picture

The picture with the iphone using safari is squashed. If someone could fix the picture/ un-squash it that would be helpful, as I do not know how to do it. -User:Musicaldemon on January 9th, 2007 at 9:50 P.M.

Lead-in

The whole lead-in paragraph needs rewritten. It's crammed with way too many buzzwords, information that belongs in the Specifications section and just generally is difficult to read. Also, the article needs to stick to announced features and capabilities, not speculation. I admire Wikipedians' fervor to add information, but the article is a bit of a mess right now. -- Kesh 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can worry about that for the moment until details/specifics settle down. I mean, for an intro to the complete 7 hour history of the official iphone, there really is no need to jump on the change.WasAPasserBy 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrase "Apple has filed for 200 patents..." should read "Apple claims to have filed for..." or "Apple CEO Steve Jobs has said that apple filed for..." as the cited source article only quotes Jobs himself from the keynote, not any source that verified the actual number of patents. This seems like it is too round a number to be perfectly accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onshisan (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Availability in Canada

The article writes that it will be available in Canada in June. I am pretty sure there was no mention of this in the keynote, or did I miss something? 70.80.66.195 04:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Rogers will be releasing it in Q4 2007/Q1 2008. http://www.johnwiseman.ca/blogging/technology/apples-new-iphone-availability-in-canada/ 142.150.8.249 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lock This Page

Already had to cut out "Mike Jones", more vandalism expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinCLovesU (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. This page should be locked to prevent vandalism. Weters 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Two Batteries?

i read somewhere (i think) that the iphone would include two batteries. one for the mp3 and one for the phone. im not sure if this is correct and how they would manage to fit it into the phone. could someone please confirm or deny this please?

This was from a early rumor site, not from fact. I'd have to watch it again, but I think that Kevin from Digg said it, I'd have to rewatch, but regardless, its not mentioned under tech specs http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/specs.html, so it shouldn't be mentioned.

Does anyone have any info on what the battery specs are beyond the capacity? Are they the same kind used in iPods?, are they replaceable..? Sfacets 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Two batteries would not be needed to prevent music and video-playback from draining the phone. It would be much easier to just disable these functions in software once the battery reach a certain charge-level, like 10 percent or whatever.

Well there are usually two batteries in electronic devices - which maintain the time for example, so that the machine can tell which time it is when it is switched back on. I don't think this is what the user means though, I think he is refering to a Diggnation episode where the host makes a comment on the possibilities of their being two batteries in the upcoming iPhone. Seems dodgy to me that the batteries won't be replaceable (at least not with major surgery) Apple batteries have had a track record of either failing after a while and even exploding. Sfacets 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They are built into the phone just like in the iPod. You have to recharge it and I guess when the battery goes, you ship it off to get it replaced like with the iPod.

fair use replacements

I've noticed the disputes that had flared up over the fair use of the promotional images, and I think this would be the best place to discuss the issue more broadly. There are already some images on Flickr posted with free licenses[3] (some legitimately, others not), so I guess the question is, "Do any of them 'adequately give the same information' according to the fair use criteria?" Dancter 08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone disambiguation proposal

iPhone should be a redirect to iPhone (disambiguation) page or Linksys iPhone. I fail to see why wikipedia should endorse trademark violations by linking iPhone to a product that infringes on Cisco's trademark at the time of Steve Job's announcement. Kommodorekerz 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple has been in talks with Cisco about the trademark for a while now, and both companies expect a deal to be reached very soon 71.251.184.16 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it was an infringement at the time. Kommodorekerz 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter, WP:NAME is clear on this. As most people who will go to iPhone will be looking for information on the Apple cellphone, Wikipedia shouldn't care if it infringes on the Cisco trademark or not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not THAT soon... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIN3LO0.html Cisco is suing Apple.

WP:PRECISION is even clearer on this: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase". This article should be titled iPhone (Apple) or Apple iPhone; for now, iPhone should be a disambiguation page. And if the courts find in Cicso's favour (and I don't see why they shouldn't, seeing as how Apple don't have a legal leg to stand on), "iPhone" should go to iPhone (Linksys). Martin 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I agree with Martin. iPhone is a legal trademark of Cisco whether Apple buy the rights to it or not. When I typed iPhone (as a test), I was expecting a disambiguation page or straight to Cisco (or even a page about the use of the word "iPhone"). Not my decision, but I think going directly to Apple iPhone is the wrong choice - it screams of POV. 194.203.201.92 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, iPhone should result in a disambiguation page only and be locked 83.67.57.244 11:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION is a guideline, WP:NAME is official policy. Therefor NAME rules over NC(P). Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco is the rightful holder of the trademarked name "iPhone"; therefore iPhone on Wikipedia should link either to the Cisco product or to a disambiguation page. --PhoenixVTam 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

SUPER UMTS / 3G

According to Apple Italy, the iphone will be released with 3G & Super UMTS when released in Europe. Dont know if anybody else can confirm this but personaly I think the iphone is already out of date with its current features, most phone in Europe recently released have Super UMTS, wifi ect. Check out the HTC TyTN which is already 6 months old and has all the iphones features and alot more (apart from 8GB memory).

I agree. Without 3G and a decent battery lifetime the iphone will fade into obscurity before even being released everywhere. I'm not sure people will care so much about a dozen of cool add-on features as long as their new 400-600$ mobile phone is below average. --- Alan F.

Widgets definition

In the keynote, Jobs showed only two applications he called widgets: Weather and Stocks. The other applications being referred to in this article as "widgets" seem more like full fledged "applications" on the phone. Are we using the correct terminology here to call all of "SMS, Calendar, Photos, Camera, Calculator, Stocks, Maps, Weather, Notes, and Clock." as Widgets? Mike Koss 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and changed the text accordingly. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Specifications"

I'm not sure how to write for this section without being redundant with either the infobox or with the Features section. What's in there now seems like an arbitrary restatement of features in odd priority and capitalization. RVJ 11:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Third-party Dashboard Widgets

Under "Third-Party Development", The article reads:

Apple has announced that the iPhone will allow the execution of Dashboard widgets.

Apple has said that the iPhone runs "widgets," certainly, but does it run the same widgets as MacOS X Dashboard, and can third-party developers actually load them onto phone without Apple's permission?

Is there any source for the statement in the article? Can we confirm this? (I can find speculation here[4], but that's about it.)

If there's no source for this statement, I'm going to remove it, or edit it to say the official status is uncertain. emk (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

its a bit of a tough one. Since widgets are HTML/CSS/Javascript, they may do the same thing as with Tiger to let you load them. However, Cocoa Dashboard widgets is where it gets funny because while Steve Jobs officially said the iphone uses Cocoa at the keynote, he never said if dashboard will. But I agree with EMK I guess, I assumed, possibly wrongly before that third party would be supported. I believe we should mention Widgets under the development section though still, because it is very likely they will be also third party. But maybe keep it how it was changed now. Auzy 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really hoping that the iPhone supports third-party widgets, or even better, that it can sync widgets with Leopard (and thus work with Dashcode, etc). I'm not at all optimistic about Cocoa widgets, because that would essentially open the phone up to full programmability. But so far, no official word on third-party widgets, Cocoa or otherwise. Maybe it's worth bugging Apple Developer Services, to see if we can get a straight answer? emk (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since they are so fond of saying that the iPhone runs Safari, since they are calling the iPhone widgets "widgets" & since my understanding is that Dashboard widgets can run in Safari; I'm hopeful that--even though there may be some differences between iPhone widgets & Dashboard widgets--that they are essentially the same thing. In fact, it's an easy way to allow 3rd-party development while keeping it sandboxed. But, yeah, it's all speculation right now. If the iPhone really does have the full Safari, though, there are plenty of "applications" that won't need to be loaded directly onto the device. --Malirath 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

speakers

somebody should post about where the speakers are Bobguy89 13:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well logic dictates that at least the opening for the speaker for handset operation is located above the LCD (in portrait mode). I doubt that a different speaker is used for handsfree and Video/Audio playback. Remember that the iPhone has a sensor (the proximity sensor) to detect that the user is using the device as a phone, so the volume can be automatically adjusted for both modes. But in fact there is no real information about the speaker released, (as far as I know) so this is still speculative. I wrote a bit about this in the article, but it was removed and replaced by the single sentence "The loudspeaker is used both for handsfree operations and media playback." and in truth this is all that is really known at this time. Mahjongg 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the keynote video (free download form the iTunes podcasts section), you'll see that Steve mentioned that the speaker is on the let of the bottom side, next to the 30-pin "iPod" connector and microphone.

announced vs future product tag

This is an officially announced product, whose specs and details have been published by the manufacturer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So? You created {{announced product}} as being distinct from {{future product}} basically so you could put it on this page, right? Please, get your head around the fact that there's no fundamental difference between the two, and your template-baby does nothing to improve the informative accuracy of the article. Actually, it takes away from it. This article *does* contain speculative and preliminary information. You cannot possibly prove that the specifications and release dates announced by Apple in January are still going to apply in June. You can't! It's not possible! Never mind the fact that Apple is known for changing such things on a whim, what if something else comes up? The wording of {{future product}} is deliberate in covering the encyclopedic circumstances of the information that follows, and -- as has been the case on Wikipedia for the last year and a half -- is quite sufficient in denoting future products. -/- Warren 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, the two templates are distinct. It this template starts on this article, then it can spread to other articles as well which have been wrongly categorized. Sfacets 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

{{announced product}} reads to me like it describes a product that has been both announced and released. It doesn't make the distinction that's significant here, which is that the product has not been released yet. It also doesn't indicate another important and related distinction, which is that information here is preliminary.

The second sentence, "It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only." is confusing to me - it seems to read that (1) there is a possibility that the article contains information released by the manufacturer and (2) there is a possibility that the article contains information by other reliable sources. This sounds like a non-disclaimer — that is what is expected of all articles. The inclusion of "only" seems to suggest that there could be other sources of information, beyond the manufacturer and reliable sources, meaning we might use non-reliable sources? I just don't understand this template. What's wrong with {{future product}}? It's "future" as in its forthcoming; the fact that it's officially announced doesn't change that. In fact, and as past AfDs and DRVs have shown, if it were not officially announced, there wouldn't even be an article about it. schi ^talk 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The information here isn't preliminary, which makes all the difference. Sfacets 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And how you know that? I kind of remember many, many products that were changed before launch. Until then, all information is preliminary for us. -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Inserting the {{future product}} tag makes original research assumptions that the prosuct "might" change sometime in the future, whereas the {{announced product}} makes no assumptions, and bases everything on facts (sources) Sfacets 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the announced product tag reads It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only. so it indicates it may also contain original research. Both templates say the same, but one points the article may have original research, while the other points the article may have reliable sources. -- ReyBrujo 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, it's really an "original research assumption" to assume that the product information might change by the time of release? It seems to me that it's just as much an "original research assumption" that the product won't change upon release. schi ^talk 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it, the template doesn't make that assumption, or any assumption. Sfacets 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case (which I don't believe is the case), then why would you insert the {{announced product}} tag at all? schi ^talk 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The information in this article *is* preliminary. Several times through Apple's history, and even more often in the world outside Apple, the specs of a product have changed (sometimes drastically) between announcement and release, and the FCC may require changes to the iPhone before it hits stores. The {{future product}} template says that the article may contain preliminary or speculative information which may not reflect the final version of the product; this applies in this case. I just don't understand the point of the {{announced product}} template: when it says the article "may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only", is it warning the user that the article might not contain information about popular reaction to the product or references to it in media, or is it telling an editor that such information is prohibited? (There's no Wikipedia prohibition against information such as that.) I just don't understand whether the {{announced product}} template is warning what kind of information the article might contain or declaring what kind of information the article can contain. - Brian Kendig 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the template {{announced product}} doesn't make any assumptions on wether the product is preliminary or not, but rather focuses on what data is given by official sources. Sfacets 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. If {{announced product}} doesn't care whether the product is preliminary, are you saying it should go on all product pages whether the product is preliminary or released? And why the concern over "what data is given by official sources", given that verifiability is already a keystone of Wikipedia, and there may be useful information about products outside of what's given by "official sources"? You'll never see any negative qualities of a product mentioned by its official sources, for example. - Brian Kendig 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone had to say it: BECAUSE THE WORD OF JOBS IS ABSOLUTE AND PURE AND UNCORRUPTABLE! ALL HAIL JOBS!

C'mon, people. This is a future release, subject to change. From what I've seen, the trademark on iPhone hasn't even been officially settled (or wasn't, during the above BS). Standards on the device could change, price points could change, lawsuits could force features out. Just because Jobs said it doesn't make it 100% uncorruptable fact. 209.153.128.248 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go to every one of the pages here (Windows Vista, for example, whose specs have also been released by the manufacturer) and add the "announced product" to all the products which have been announced, lest you appear NPOV. cacophony ◄► 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Widescreen" video

Is 4:6 widescreen? I thought that term was reserved for 16:9 (or maybe 16:10?). cacophony ◄► 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not true wide screen as evident in the presentation the other day. --70.48.68.147 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While "widescreen" might be specific technical jargon in some contexts, I wouldn't expect such a meaning to extend to all usage of the word. Especially usage in a company's marketing. I think it's safe to assume here it means nothing more than "wider than previous iPod screens". --Malirath 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The screen ratio is 3:2, whereas the "old" video iPod has a ratio of 4:3. By this definition (widescreen being 16:9 or even 16:10 ), it's not true widescreen. Here's a comparison chart: Image:Video_Standards.svg -- Eptin 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So what should be changed? Change it to "semi-widescreen"? "Wider screen"? Or just say "screen", and add a note about it being wider than the ipod screen? cacophony ◄► 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've commented out the image above. Please resize it to a thumbnail here, as not all of us are using a high-resolution screen! -- Kesh 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that's better. Thank you very much! -- Kesh 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Images that meet WPs requirements.

Flickr has this image and this image. I'm not sure about exactly which CC images are OK, but I think thes are OK. The current images are not OK. - Peregrine Fisher 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Noone responded when I commented on the issue earlier. I was even about to delete my comment. CC-BY-SA is definitely OK. To be extremely nitpicky, pretty much all the iPhone images on Flickr marked with free licenses have some possible copyright issues (the Apple logo, copyrighted imagery displayed on-screen, recognizable images of random people displayed in the background), but the photos themselves are freely licensed, and could be in principle be edited to be completely free. Dancter 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we find any better free images? These are fine, for the moment, but no match for the earlier ones in terms of clarity and aesthetics Sfacets 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Just as long as they're free use because, bottom line, free use images should ALWAYS replace fair use images. Roguegeek (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that they are still copyrighted. Apple owns the copyright to the user interface. That image should not have been on the Wikimedia Commons, as the Commons can only host free use images. I nominated it for speedy deletion and it was deleted. If you would like to upload the file on Wikipedia, feel free to do so, but it is FAIR USE, not FREE USE. All images of the iPhone will be fair use, AKA copyrighted, as the user interface is copyrighted. Showing the iPhone with the screen blank would not show the function of the phone, so we will have to use fair use. Scepia 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I commented on that, too. There are still some things I'm unclear about, though. Even it it wasn't suitable for Commons, wasn't the image still preferable as a more free image? Or is principle that copyrighted is copyrighted, and free is free, and it doesn't matter how much? Dancter 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can the images from www.apple.com/pr consider as free? The agreement is to use it as is.

Image I uploaded listed for deletion

I resized and re-cropped the image of the iPhone displaying Safari and uploaded it last night. I 'thought' I used the license for 'Macintosh Software' but it didn't seem to note that with the upload. I just got a message that the image is listed for deletion. I don't know much about Wiki copyright and licensing requirements, so perhaps somone who does can do what is needed. - Thanks FAAFA (I want an iPhone NOW) 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

future product template

From David Pogue's hands-on:

"The phone won’t be available until June, so some of its software isn’t finished yet. As I tapped my way into obscure corners of the phone, Mr. Jobs pointed out a couple of spots where only a placeholder graphic was available."

"The refresh rate felt typical of a camera-phone to me, but Mr. Jobs said that it would be much smoother by the time the phone is done."

Link AlistairMcMillan 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the iPhone is out but not available for purchase until June. So would you say that this is a 'future' product because people cannot get one now but some people at Apple have it. Or is it just semantics and technicalities that we like to enforce upon ourselves? Just wondering if a product needs to be available for purchase in order for it not to be a 'future' product. Protector of the Truth 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Any product that is not yet available for purchase is a future product. Until meets a shipping date and is on sale, it counts as a future product. -- Kesh 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

File formats

At the moment the article only mentions that the iPhone can play Mp3's. Conceviably it can play everything (and more?) an iPod video can... of course this is only speculation unless we can find sources... Sfacets 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

APC Magazine Publisher

The criticism section mentioned an article published in APC Magazine, and stated that the magazine was an MSN publication. The magazine is published by Australian Consolidated Press. ACP's parent company PBL co-owns the ninemsn portal, which is why there is a banner for it at the top of the APC Magazine website.

Since the attribution is incorrect, and there was no comment left when the attribution was added (diff), I've removed it.

My guess is that the text was added to discredit the article by association with one of Apple's chief competitors --James 09:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV warning

If we are to describe "criticism" of the iPhone, we ought to describe also the extraordinarily positive response in the press. Section marked as a POV violation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we need something that's fair and balanced. I'd say that many of those criticisms could be very real, however some of them seem to be meant to cause FUD. There's been some phenominal reviews out already, and we need to collect some of the other side of the story - JustinWick 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stating the trademark concerns does not matter is not good. Wiki is a objective source of information

Even this attempt(*) to see things in a more objective perspective are deleted.I am sorry to see that Apple fanboys are taking over Wiki.

(*) The trademark iPhone is currently used for at least two products. Linksys , the trademark holder( a Cisco company) is using it for the iPhone internet VOIP solution appliances.

And Apple for it’s newly announced iPhone Wireless cell phone. ( see further) In jan 2007 Cisco sued Apple for infringement of it’s trademark.

show facts not whishes

Be Objective, do not threathen to block users who are trying to be objective. Fact: the name iPhone belongs to a existing product. Show at least both products before you give more information. This is a Encyclopedia and not a PR forum for Apple fanboys! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.90.13.169 (talk • contribs).

It is noted in the very begin and in the Trademark part. I think it's enough. --Have a nice day. Running 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

I requested a semi-protection for this article, I hope it will protect it from all these vandals. --Have a nice day. Running 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not good!.

This is a Encyclopedia and not a PR instrument for Apple Inc. A reference to iPhone should start with the name of a existing product as is the case since 1997. Linksys is the trademark holder and as such should be named at least first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikisedEN (talk • contribs).

Nor is the article an instrument for Cisco employees to express displeasure. There are established guidelines for naming and disambiguation (let alone talk page civility). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I can say it again. It is noted in the very begin (For the line of Internet appliances, see iPhone (Linksys).) and in the Trademark part. I think it's enough. I hope it's the last time I have to repeat it. --Have a nice day. Running 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[quote]It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people looking for an article on iPhone are looking for the Apple product.[/quote] That's not the question here. People who use a Encyclopedia are looking for information about a certain topic. It's a FACT that when you look for iPhone there are two products with that name. It's essential information about the topic. It the reason why you use a Encyclopedia! If you are asuming they only want part of the truth ( the Apple Inc part that is) your are breaking down the fundamentals of a Encyclopedia. If i wanted types of censorship i can move to China.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikisedEN (talk • contribs).

First of all, it's not censorship, and the insinuation that it is is quite improper and maligns the intent of the folks involved. Second, please review the WP:NAME article to see why the article is structured the way it is now. If the iPhone from Apple and the iPhone from Cisco were of roughly the same stature, then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. But they ain't, not by a loooooooong shot, and I believe that's what the proponents of the current name are saying. For example, take a look at Big Ben. By your logic, it should go to Big Ben (disambiguation). But that's doesn't seem sensible, because folks are many orders of magnitude more likely to be wanting to know about the clock tower at Westminster, not the 1930s tobacco or the canadian WWII writer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is noted in the very begin (For the line of Internet appliances, see iPhone (Linksys).) and in the Trademark part. I think it's enough. I hope it's the last time I have to repeat it. --Have a nice day. Running 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent: PSP points to a disambiguation page, although Sony has trademarked PSP. We have a history of stupid disambiguation pages, like PC. However, in this particular case, I believe this article should be here, as the casual reader is more likely to search for the Apple product than the Linksys one. -- ReyBrujo 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, also note that the PSP disambiguation page has 26 different meanings for PSP, the iPhone disambiguation page would only have two. The currents solution of a link to Cisco's product is enough. Mahjongg 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Review section

Why is there a review section? Hardly anyone has even physically touched iPhone, let alone reviewed it. This section also contains references to problems with iPhone that amount to pure speculation, yet is presented as "review." Sjenkins7000 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pogue from the NYT, and at least one other reviewer, did get about an hour with the device after launch. But most, I'm sure, are really just speculation and unreliable original research on their own part, and probably should be deleted. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Has Apple got the go-ahead from Federal agency?

As I recall seeing reports from the time of Job's address Apple hadn't (at the time) got permission from the relevant federal agency: "This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission". Has Apple got the green light yet? Kommodorekerz 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It takes a few months to get FCC approval for a new electronic communication device. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Will it also affect worldwide availability? Kommodorekerz 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Different countries/unions have their own regulatory bodies. But this is off-topic for this talk page.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know different countries have their own regulation. I was just wondering whether (speculate for a moment) a failure to get authorizations from FCC would affect Apple's incentive to manufacture this gadget to the point that it will not be available both inside and outside the US. Kommodorekerz 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Failure to get FCC approval is unlikely, and again, this talk page is supposed to be about this article, not speculation about the topic itself. I'm sure there are discussion forums for such speculation. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant, however, that Apple currently does not have FCC approval. That needs to be noted in the article, but we cannot speculate on whether it will be approved or not.--Here T oHelp 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is (and has been for a while) mentioned in the lede section. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move(s)

The result was no consensus. It was a doomed train wreck from the start. Please do not add more votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havok (talk • contribs) 15:06, January 14, 2007

The iPhone

I propose moving this and other small case Apple products to articles with "The". frummer 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What benefit would this provide? -- Kesh 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

None as far as I can see. It seems complety pontless because the iphone is not the name of the product ans IIRC the use of the in a title is not suposed to be used unless it is necessary and that is not the case here. This type of moved was tried for ipod once and was rejected soundly. You can check it you want. Don't let the no consensus close fool you that was a clear mistake on the closers part because no one (except the nominator) supported it. It was about 16 or 17 to 0. It will almost certinly be rejected the same way here. Long stoty short it would be a waste of time --65.95.16.65 04:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It's unnecessary, it will just lead to a lot of redirects, and I don't think there's much precedent in other encyclopedias. MFNickster 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Lack of argument supporting this move. --Serge 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, we don't have a page for the iPod or the iMac, and never will. Makes no sense. Scepia 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, invalid request. Policy establishes we should avoid "the", "a" and "and" at the beginning of a page name. Also read this style guide. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reason above. Gives undue weight to the product. Sfacets 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Apple iPhone is a better solution IMO

Oppose Adding "the" in front of the name adds nothing. The controversy still exists. it solves nothing and is a waste of time.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No "The" please. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It goes against the naming conventions, and adds nothing. Guy Harris 09:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated above. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see the point. Square 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Absurd idea (but The Wikipedia does have a nice ring to it!) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Apple iPhone is a clearer description, and good indication of the difference between the Apple one and the Linksys one. --Jackcsk 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple iPhone

This name previously suggested at WP:RM, but without a rationale on the talk page. The current title blatantly takes a side in the trademark dispute between Linksys iPhone and Apple iPhone. iPhone should be a disambiguation page between the two, and possibly (pending later discussion and developments) the home for the content about the trademark dispute. Savidan 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It would be nice to have iPhone trademark as the default page, but the section at the moment is too thin. Did Apple/Cisco/Infogear file requests at other jurisdiction outside those countries named in the section? Kommodorekerz 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Found out Apple has also filed requests in Singapore, New Zealand and the UK. Not sure about other countries. Kommodorekerz 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? If we did that, it would just move the debate to the "iPhone/iphone/Iphone" disambiguation pages. Which one should it redirect to? It wouldn't be worth it to create an actual disambiguation page with two links on it, so it should redirect to one or the other. And we go round and round on that argument again. I think we need to leave it as-is for now.

As to the trademark dispute, that really has no place on a disambiguation page. It should either be a part of both articles, or an article itself. -- Kesh 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, WP is not interested in legal matters unless they have to specificly do with Wikipedia. This is a debate between Apple/Cisco, not with Wikipedia. The Apple iPhone is worlds more notable then Linksys iPhone, and that is all that matters on Wikipedia. Leave trademarks to lawyers. Scepia 05:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia is not beholden to trademark law. The Google Test comparing "iPhone +Apple -Cisco" with "iPhone -Apple +Cisco" shows that the Apple iPhone is at least an order of magnitude more notable, and "primary topic disambiguation" should apply. Nohat 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The iPhone link should be a disambiguation page with entries in the order products were announced/released, for example, 1) a link to the Cisco/Linksys/Infogear iPhone (possibly called iPhone (Linksys)) , 2) info (no link may be needed) on Comwave, Nuvio, Teledex, and other Cisco related/licensed companies offering an iPhone service, 3) a link to Apple's "iPhone" page called Apple iPhone. I didn't know that whatever the "current cool product" is, mattered so much on Wikipedia that it could affect a page, information, and consequently, its "ranking." --- WiZZLa 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - this article serves as a disambiguation page for those interested in the far less known Cisco range of internet related products. It is always about the more popular subject matter getting the article, why should it change now? Sfacets 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This is the article that the vast majority of readers are looking for when they look up "IPhone". AmbientArchitecture 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree Any assumption cannot be verified, which wikipedia needs. All of you are assuming people are looking for apple's product. Yes, apple is popular, yes, the apple iphone is popular. But keep this in mind, the apple iphone is at this point a product annoncement. There is no physical apple iphone. But linksys has a real product, a product which consumers see at retail shops and can buy. Not only that, iphone has been around for a long time. It used to refer to infogear's phones. there have been many iphones released (as early as 1998)and out on the market, NONE of which are apple's. Given that, any assumption that either apple's or cisco's is the iPhone is simply wrong. I absolutely agree with a disambiguation page.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, there's no reason to use an ambiguous name when an unambiguous one would be trivially longer and in line with normal conventions. If it's really that much of a primary topic, we can keep iphone as a redirect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong opposeWikipedia doesn't care about trademark violations, that Cisco owns the trademark for the name is beside the point. We should make it easier on our visitors, and as stated several times on this talk page. Only a fraction of people will be looking for the Linksys iPhone, most people will be looking for Apple's iPhone. Also, the naming has been decided due to WP:NAME. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it any harder to be redirected to Apple iPhone? We do this when the name is ambiguous. Apple Newton, or Apple Lisa, or any other ambiguity in apple products is resolved the same way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree Wikipedia should respect cisco's product and at least have a disambiguation page with details of the two. "Apple iPhone" & "Cisco iPone" Squishedorange 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia should not take a stand due to trademarks, but convenience to visitors and our policy on WP:NAME. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A disambiguation page for the ambiguous term is not 'taking a stand', it's the neutral position. BarryNorton 12:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Look at it practically. Think of how many more people will come here looking for info on Apple's iPhone rather than Cisco's. Havok makes a good point, that according to WP:NAME, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Sjenkins7000 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree. This isn't even affected by the results of any trademark hearing, Apple iPhone is the product and iPhone in isolation is ambiguous. BarryNorton 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree - as I noted above, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is clear on this: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase". Citing WP:NAME fails to account for the simple fact that (for now) there are two separate articles about two communication devices called "iPhone". Changing the name of the article so it reflects that it's about the Apple product will make it more clear for readers, not less. The title of this article should be totally unambiguous; it is not at present. Martin 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:NAME still rules over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). And WP:NAME is clear on this as quoted above. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NAME does not "rule" over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), because the issue regards two devices with the same name, and so we must ensure we precisely name the article to avoid confusion (e.g. see Microsoft, Upgrade, Etc. below). WP:NAME is only relevant if you are suggesting that iPhone (Apple) or Apple iPhone are misleading or confusing titles that the average person wouldn't be able to understand, which is obviously not the case. iPhone should be a disambiguation page. Putting the manufacturers' names in the respective articles will aid clarity for the reader, and the beloved WP:NAME calls for the article to be "optimised for readers". How is making an article's title more ambiguous and unclear "optimising" it? Anyhow, MacPhone is a much better name.... :) Martin 14:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree - Comment - Martin is right on this one. He is exhibiting great knowledge on this point and I agree with him. It was enough to confuse me and I think there needs to be some way to tell the difference Cynthia18 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Apple does not refer to the product as "Apple iPhone"; just as "iPhone". Macintosh was moved to where it is from Apple Macintosh a few months ago to replace a disambiguation page. I will admit, though, that the other iPhone is more notable then a disambiguation page. If further disambiguation is needed, call it iPhone (Apple) and make this page the disambig.--Here T oHelp 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NAME. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Linksys does not call their product the "Linksys iPhone", either. -- Istill316 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. To call the article Apple iPhone makes it easier for the reader and help us separate it from the Linksys iPhone. 81.233.73.177/HSB

Oppose per WP:NAME and product is not called "Apple iPhone". ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons stated above. Everyone who cares identifies "iPhone" with Apple. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Per most of the previous comments. Apple has obviously been better at marketing its phone. Tough luck for Linksys, but Wikipedia is not the place to settle trademark squabbling. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree When a title is ambiguous (as this is), declaring that apple put out more PR is hardly a reason to pretend that the cisco version doesn't exist. The fact is, even beyond people looking for the apple iphone, or the cisco iphone, there are going to be a great number of people who are specifically looking up 'iphone' to see which they get, in light of the lawsuit. Does it really make sense to greet these people with direct proof that an ambiguous, non-neutral title was chosen, specifically to side with one side of the complaint? How in the world can ambiguity be considered better? Neutrality, clarity, and just plain common sense should really prevail here. Bladestorm 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment the only way to remain neutral in this matter is to apply our existing policies (namely "primary topic disambiguation") and base our naming policy for this article on special treatment due to external factors. Nohat 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree For all we know, this device name could be changing. I see Macintosh fans getting "protective". JRT 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not base our naming policies on speculation of future events, but rather on the facts as they exist now. Nohat 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The vast majority of people searching "iphone" will be looking for the apple version, so it should definitely be the primary topic. If apple has to change the name or some other similar development happens, we can deal with it then. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no question if the name iPhone is ambiguous—it is not in dispute that there are at least two products called iPhone. The question is whether "primary topic disambiguation" applies. If it does apply, then having the article about the Apple product on this page is correct thing to do. If it doesn't apply, then having a disambiguation page is correct. The appropriate section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation says "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." I think there substantial quantitative evidence (like Google searches) that iPhone means the Apple product orders of magnitude more often than any other meaning, and therefore primary topic disambiguation should apply. Those who think this page should be moved should be prepared to provide some quantitative evidence that the non-Apple meanings of iPhone are substantial enough to justify equal-treatment disambiguation, and not rely on irrelevant legal arguments or immaterial arguments that the two products have the same name. Nohat 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - But the point here is that both of these two products DO, in fact, have the same name. It is not immaterial but an argument nonetheless. Something to think about... :) Cynthia18 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have the same name, but that is immaterial. We have specific policies for dealing with things that have the same name. The current handling is the correct one. Nohat 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help here Nohat! I still think the best answer to all of this is in the next section. Cynthia18 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree : This is wikipedia. Not a blog. If at all this unreleased product had to be identified with iPhone name, put Apple first. iPhone belongs to Linksys/Cisco and lets keep it that way. Square 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree : Cisco owns the trademark, plain and simple. Apple stole the name, and if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an internet publication, it must acknowledge the rightful owner of the trademark. 64.65.248.221 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. For the same reason there aren't articles for Apple iMac, Apple iPod and Apple MacBook, this article should remain simply iPhone; it's stylistically consistent, for one, and there's even a link to the Linksys product on the page for Apple's product. Will2dye4 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry will, but I'm having a hard time finding information on the Linksys MacBook. Or the Cisco iMac. Where can I find that again? (Incidentally, even though the portable system is, by far, the product most associated with 'PSP', there's still a redirect, to minimize ambiguity. Keep that in mind when you think of "stylistically consistent") Bladestorm 21:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree: Using terms such as 'iPod' is fine, as there is no other product of the same name, and hence not a chance of confusion. The point on 'PSP' is a very good one and should be applied in this case. Istill316 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: PlayStation Portable and Paint Shop Pro are both pretty common. The Linksys iPhone is non-notable, only having an article because of the Apple product. People interested in the Linksys product should click on the link at top - it's right there. At the very top. Scepia 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize that the other products under the name have been pretty conclusively decided to satisfy our notability guidelines, and it's rather dishonest to disregard the dozens of editors who disagree with you on that? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended the Linksys lovers (sarcasm). The Linksys product would not have it's own page (and for that matter, would not exist IMO) if Apple wasn't going into the cell phone business. Don't be ignorant because you can. Scepia 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - This isn't going to help any, as that's not the product name, so it does nothing to help disambiguate the article. If anything "iPhone (Apple)" makes more sense as it keeps the product name intact, while delineating which version of the product the article is about. -- Kesh 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree - A disambiguation page has been created at iPhone (disambiguation). If Wikipedia is neutral, it cannot take sides by assigning Apple the iPhone name, nor give Apple unfair advertising.

- The iPhone page perhaps should focus on the lawsuit, giving equal time to both parties and linking appropriately to the Linksys iPhone and Apple iPhone pages.

- To argue that other Apple products are linked without the 'Apple' prefix, such as the iPod, is to ignore the fact that there are no products competing for the same name in those cases, unlike this case.

- That "Apple iPhone" is not the product name is irrelevant; likewise, "Linksys iPhone" is not that product's name.

Agree. That's a respect of Linksys' official ownership of the trademark "iPhone". Wikipedia is not here to judge which topic gets more searches. --Jackcsk 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Then why does Big Ben go to the clock page, and not to a disambiguation page? Because that's what most people will be searching for. -- Kesh 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

- The above referenced example of PSP should be taken into consideration.The primary topics on that disambiguation page are the Playstation PSP and Paint Shop Pro PSP, the latter much older than the former but much less commonly accessed, as may be inferred from the number of Google and Yahoo search results for "PSP Playstation", "PSP Paint", or "PSP Pro". The difference between those search results is much greater than that between "iPhone Apple" and "iPhone Linksys" or "iPhone Cisco", and yet it has a disambiguation page. This issue should follow suit. -- Istill316 21:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you do a fair Google search, of PlayStation Portable and Paint Shop Pro, the former get 2.1 million, and the latter 1.6 million. Pretty close. Scepia 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, as per WP:NAME; as an aside, I hardly little to no chance of the final decision here affecting Cisco's litigation. As for 'free advertising' for Apple, opposing the name change if anything springs from the opposite impulse; Apple's promotional machine has already created huge mindshare for the iPhone, and keeping the name simply concedes that point. —GGreeneVa 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - As clumsy as it may be, placing the Apple product here is certainly jumping the gun, just like Apple have done. iPhone should just be a 2 link disambig until this is sorted out. I know 2 link disambigs are bad for navigation (everybody needs an extra page load), but that's the most sensible option right now. - hahnch e n 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Until the issue between Cisco and Apple is resolved, there should be disambiguation page with both phones listed.Zeus1234 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case it would make more sense for it to be at iPhone (Apple) because it makes it clear that is a a disambiguation. It is also how dabs are suspose to be done. It also not imply that Appple is part of the offical product name, as the this name would do. There is a discussion for that name lower down if you want to change your mind. --70.48.175.143 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone - One Name, Two Products

Perhaps we should merge the two product articles together into one article that details both products equally and without bias. This removes most confusion and ambiguity, and follows all the WP rules I'm aware of that pertain to this issue. Plus, this will be a great way to show just HOW the products are different regardless of any trademark and copyright issues. We could even include two seperate lists of product specifications and features that will most likely show both similarities and differences. Cynthia18 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense, it'd be like merging all the Big Ben articles together. In that case, should we have an article that compares how the watch tower clock at Westminster is different from a 1930s tobacco and how those two are different from a canadian writer about WWII? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But in this case, there aren't several very different products or 'things' being talked about. I wasn't aware that people often thinking about that big clock tower in Westminster get things confused with a WWII author or tobacco line. In this case, there is (and has been especially for me) much confusion regarding these very similar products. I just think it would be helpful to show HOW these products are different whereas everyone could tell the difference between a can of snuff and a gigantic tower or a writer. Cynthia18 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - I, for one, think that these articles should be merged into one that details both products, as both are 'iPhones'. Cynthia18 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose as this will create more confusion and argument than before. Which one gets to be the top portion and which gets punted to the bottom? Gonna mix the two together? That's asking for confused readers. And if one of the products does get renamed, we have to split the articles again. No, they need to be seperate articles as they are seperate products. -- Kesh 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. With the recent events, both brands of iPhone have become quite notable. There is a message at the top of both pages that links to the other one. Scepia 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - On the basis that cynthia is not altogether sane enough to make any judgments or statements regarding anything related to apple or otherwise. 210.92.207.2 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose — that's simply not how things are done around here. You're argument that they are "both iPhones" is almost making the assumption that an "iPhone" is just a type of phone, and that these manufacturers have both made one... they're not ! The two products may share the name iPhones but they are very distinct and separate products, made by different manufacturers with different functionality. The only thing you could make an argument for is replacing iPhone with a disambiguation page linking to Apple iPhone and Linksys iPhone but I'd oppose that too, since I'm sure Apple's iPhone will swiftly become the better known, and a disambiguation page for two pages feels unnecessary. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone (Apple)

Martin made a good comment above: part of the purpose of WP:NAME is to clearly state what the subject of the article is. I have to agree with some here that the current name does not clearly indicate that there may be more than one product with this name. In some cases, such a change would not make sense (Big Ben versus Big Ben (England), for example). However, I believe this would help make the page's subject more clear, in addition to matching the format of iPhone (Linksys), which would better suit WP:NPOV. -- Kesh 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The page is actually Linksys iPhone. Most users are looking for the Apple product, and there is a nice disambig notice at the top of the page. Scepia 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it used to be iPhone (Linksys). I hadn't noticed it had the name change. Personally, I think both should be renamed appropriately. -- Kesh 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with all these support and opose votes. In Wikipedia we discuss subjects in an attempt to reach Wikipedia:Consensus. See also meta:Voting is evil ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? In this case, the discussion is so fast and furious I think it might help clarify people's positions. Generally I agree, voting on a talk page is silly. And it won't help here as a vote, but it can help clarify what the majority of people think.

I'm starting to get tired of this whole article, though. It's a mess of back-and-forth argument, rather than people trying to write an article. -- Kesh 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that even Apple will now have to defend what they're calling it from Linksys...--Here T oHelp 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. It was a doomed train wreck from the start. Please do not add more votes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gomm (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

external link

Apple iPhone Fansite Unofficial Fan Site that has potential. Impostal22 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)impostal22

3 problems: "unofficial", "fan site", and "potential". If it gets some nice info, we can add it, but doesn't amount to much at this point. Scepia 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft, Upgrade, Etc.

I've heard many rumors (including some from my brother who actually works at the Cingular store) about Microsoft's involvement with the design and development with this iPhone (unlike Linksys's version). Should we mention this somewhere in the article? I think it's quite important. Also, what are the real upgrade differences between this model and the one put out in 1996 by Linksys? I think if functions and specs have changed, we should be mentioning them in the article, or at least in the talk section? Maybe we should include a hyperlink to Cingular's mailing address in case people without computer or telephone access have problems changing their service from the Linksys version to the Apple one. These are just some ideas. I'd really like to help get this article off the ground, especially regarding the differences between the two models. Also, with this newer version, will the Linksys model still be produced? Are those going to still be available at the Apple Store? Let's work on these issues and I'm sure this article will come together nicely. Cynthia18 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, just no. Every single thing in this comment is inaccurate and misleading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes, YHBT YHL HAND. The same applies to User:Cynthia18's other comment on this page about Microsoft and the iPhone. Guy Harris 10:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to head things off without coming off too WP:BITEing even in the face of such a blatantly trolling user. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm still confused. I read the article about all those acronyms and everything and the whole WP:BITEing thing but I don't get what it is you guys are talking about. I'm not trolling, as far as I can tell. These are just some honest points of contention I wanted to bring up and now I feel like an idiot. My friend does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and said the community was really great and a nice place to learn and get to know people. I guess I don't see what she was talking about. I really wanted to help with this article because computers are really neat and I think having a phone-computer is a really good idea. I even have a friend with the older iPhone model and thought I could use some personal experience to build the best page we could. I'm still new and learning the ropes, or at least I was. I'm sorry for whatever I did. Cynthia18 10:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia, the Apple iPhone and the Linksys iPhone (which is still being produced as far as I know) are two totally separate products. Cisco are suing Apple for using the name "iPhone" without permission, so it is possible that the Apple product will not even be called the iPhone by the time it is launched. See here. Martin 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for your help on this as well. I was a bit turned off by the initial reaction to what I had posted and I'm glad you could clear this up. I am happy to see someone is willing to help me out. My only point of confusion is about the upgrade process. I understand the products are different but will Linksys users be given the option to buy this phone/computer at a discounted price due to their ownership of a previous version (albeit from a different company)? It seems likely that this will be the case, but I haven't heard how the current lawsuit by Cisco will affect consumer response. When the phone is actually launched, is there a pre-order phase for previous owners, as mentioned before? I'm not really sure that Wikipedia is the place to discuss all of this, but as I mentioned earlier on this talk page, it is interesting to think about. As an Apple owner and Linksys user (not the iPhone per se) I am excited to see where this all goes and how this miniature computer will pan out on the domestic and international markets. I just can't believe that a laptop could be so small and functional with such great phone features. Again, thanks and we'll have to see what happens! Cynthia18 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia, I note that some of the questions you ask would be very handy ones for a CISCO attorney to use in a trial or filings to assert that Apple had created brand confusion. Just an interesting aside. In response to your questions, though, there is no relationship between Apple and Cisco, so it's very unlikely that owning an "iPhone" named product that isn't the specific Apple product being discussed would entitle a user to any type of preferential pricing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cynthia, as has been pointed out, the Apple iPhone is in no way related to the Linksys iPhone; they both (for now) have the same name, that is the only connection between the two products. If you're interested in discussing Apple products, they have forums at MacRumors and AppleInsider where you can speculate to your heart's content. Martin 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on this and the interesting aside. I finally now understand that there is NO RELATION between the Linksys iPhone and the newer version, the Apple iPhone other than the name itself and possibly a few unintentional (or perhaps intentional) features. This is irregardless of what my brother says, although he is often right in these types of situations, i.e. tech questions, computers, modems, cords, power strips, etc. I guess I see why it would be foolish for current iPhone owners to receive any type of preferential pricing for a newer iPhone, regardless of carrier selection, contract length, or even personal preferences. Thanks for your help and also to Martin for yours. I will be furthering my research at the noted websites from Martin and will try to contribute usefully on this article and other Apple related articles in the future. Let's try to keep in touch! Take care and again, thanks. This truly has restored my thoughts about Wikipedia. Cynthia18 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(personal attack removed, user warned)

Again, I am crying as I type this. I feel so humiliated and violated by all of this. I cannot believe how this experience has turned out and how awful it has made me feel. I hope that comment gets taken care of like other vandalization on Wikipedia because it is truly hurtful. I don't even know what to say anymore so I'll stop. Cynthia18 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard, some people are just, like, plain mean. This kind of confusion is exactly why product names are trademarked -- it's really confusing if two similar products have, like, the same name but they're not actually related! The Linksys iPhone is the real iPhone because Cisco owns the name; the Apple iPhone is Apple being totally lame and stealing the name because they, like, think they own iEverything. --PhoenixVTam 16:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack and warned the user. That was simply uncalled for. -- Kesh 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

lowercase tag problem

The lowercase tag is not showing for me in Firefox. Anyone having that problem? Solution? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By that do you mean the text that says the page is incorrectly titled? If so, that only shows up now in browsers that do not support Javascript and CSS, as the default behavior of the template is to fix the titling — check out the name of the article at the top left. It's "iPhone", whereas without the template it would be "IPhone". —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Duh - sorry, my mistake. It was odd, however, that it does show up for me when I preview changes, but just not in the final. If you need to revert my tweaking with the order, go ahead. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Multitouch & interaction

One of the major selling points of the iPhone is the novel interaction, as it was the case with the iPod. I feel that it has to have a promintent section describing it, and that it has to be mentioned in the leading paragraph. Diego 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we don't know much about it, yet. The special features, the limits, etc. All we know is it exists, and we saw some brief demonstrations at the keynote. The whole article suffers from this, but that feature is no better than the rest.

Also, I disagree that it has to be mentioned in the leading paragraph. The lead-in should be as short as possible. -- Kesh 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We also don't know which version of the OS X it is running, and that one got mentioned. The multitouch is much more important for most (all?) users than the operative system. Also, ZUIs and touchscreens are quite well known in research - so many of the features can be inferred from them. I'll summarize "why" it's important and move the details to the body of the article. Diego 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't use such inferences to build Wikipedia content; that would be original research. Until it is directly verifiable, we're not ready to cover it in Wikipedia. Dancter 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It could have a short mention, like a sentence, but I agree that the intro can very easily become very long. Sfacets 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For Jossi and Sfacets: if you review my contribution, you'll see that I didn't remove a single comma - so Jossi's claims that I deleted properly sourced material are wrong. Diego 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the iPhone does not use a true Zooming user interface. It borrows the concept for the browsing and viewing of pictures, but the main phone interface has no zooming metaphor at all. I would also suggest merging this "Zooming paradigm" paragraph in with the Multi-touch section. -- Kesh 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Existing a "freer" image that gives as much information as the promotional one, there is no doubt. The first point of our Fair use criteria is very clear. There was an image that did not have the GUI, if I find it, I will change this one with that one because it is a fully free one. -- ReyBrujo 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Fair use says that if no image can provide the same information. A blank screen would not show much about iPhone, and would not be encyclopedic. Scepia 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Prank call

I recently removed [5] mention that Job's demo call on the iPhone was a "prank call" to Starbucks. The editor who placed it notified me [6] s/he wants to put it back since it "is just the kind of content that will interest readers." While there is all kinds of content that might be of interest to readers, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the content/context of this call is, IMO, not of encyclopedia value. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this content in the past as well. "First prank call" is hardly encyclopedic information... it's a Steve Jobs parlour trick. What's next, do we note how many times the audience applauded on cue whenever Jobs stopped talking? On top of that, we don't even know if the call was real or not. -/- Warren 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't belong in this article. If anywhere it would belong in an article dedicated to the Keynote in question. (strange that there isn't an article for the yearly Macworlds...) Sfacets 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)