Talk:iPhone/Archive 2

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 4

Archive 5

Move

Move the Linksys phone back NOW. Apple cannot call their cell phone the iPhone because Cisco has the trademark. EricJosepi 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find that aricle here: iPhone (Linksys), and the trademark issues are not our concern. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people looking for an article on iPhone are looking for the Apple product. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with ZimZalaBim on this, I don't think even a fraction of people looking for the iPhone will be looking for the Linksys one. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple did call it iPhone, you can't undo that, Eric, Sorry.-9.January 2007, Anonymus

They're working out a deal with Cisco (owns Linksys), as per this Marketwatch article[1]. Obviously Apple would know better. So trademark shouldn't be a concern, Eric. CapYoda 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the vast majority of users searching for iPhone will be looking for Apple's product.Barang 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what people will be looking for? Cisco owns the copyright to the name, that should trump a proposed or concept product name.

Get your facts straight, Mr. unsigned. Cisco holds the IPhone trademark, not copyright. This has nothing to do with what people call it, or what Wikipedia should refer to it as. 4.242.147.109 17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Second ZimZalaBim. iPhone for the Apple product and iPhone (Linksys) for the other. At worst, a disambig, but most everyone will be thinking of the Apple product. Me mi mo 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SO when the C&D comes down and I'm right can we move it back? EricJosepi 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You honestly think they haven't already worked this out?? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Already working out agreement with Cisco over use of trademark.[2] CapYoda 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

you're slow on the news eh? they use of the name was pending but apple didn't comply so cisco is currently suing them. :P

uh it was posted yesterday, as you can see from the link. CapYoda 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not when the cease & desist comes down. If Apple stops using the name, and the general public stops using the name, then it may be reasonable to rename the article. See WP:NAME: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Wikipedia article naming is not the milieu for arbitrating trademark infringements. schi ^talk 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There will be no C&D. See Cisco's statement. -- Kesh 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco is indeed suing to protect their trademark.[3] But I think it's still premature to move the article. MFNickster 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that announcement today. As of my post last night, they were still talking about the proposed agreement with Apple. Strange they did a 180 like that so quickly. Either Apple told them "No," or Cisco decided to try and force Apple to pay more money by filing a lawsuit. Bad business, no matter whose fault it is. -- Kesh 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) MFNickster 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say put this at Apple iPhone, like we do when two different companies make products with the same name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's at least two other iPhones out there, see [4]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Psounds like notable software too, hundreds of thousands of downloads, an article in wired, a minor war with IRC operators. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

wow, the apple fanboys are rabid here... regardless of what most people will think, the iPhone has been trademarked since 1996... it's cisco's product and the title of iPhone should lead to disambiguous AT THE LEAST with an iPhone(apple) and iPhone(linksys) :P

I agree completely and have modified the redirect page. It should now redirect to the cisco iphone page.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The most notable of these phones, at this moment, is Apple's iPhone. Thus, the page should stay in Apple's favor as most people will be looking for this article, not Cisco's or anyone else's. If/when (whatever) Cisco get the injunction against Apple's use of the name, the page can be redirected to a disambig until a new name is released by Apple. So instead of "rabid Cisco" fanboys crying over the fact that Apple got to use the iPhone article space, they should concentrate on making the iPhone (Linksys) article better. :P Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The term 'iPhone' should be a disambiguation and people should be free to select whether they mean to navigate to the "real" iPhone from Linksys, or what Apple is hoping they will be able to call their cell phone. Apple fanboys really are rabid. To muck up the Wikipedia by claiming a clearly disputed (and documented copyrighted) product name as an Apple product is inappropriate.

It doesn't matter what people are looking for, the Cisco iPhone came first. Apple should change the name.

It doesn't matter what came first, the Apple iPhone is the better known phone, and gets the article. This happens all the time for other articles with the same name - the criteria is always which on is better known. I think we can agree that in this case it is the Apple iPhone. Sfacets 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! It is *not* reasonable to assume the public is searching *only* for an apple product. It would be more reasonable and unbiased to provide links to both ipod (Linksys) and ipod (Apple). whointhe 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable person on the planet would concede that the vast majority of people searching Wikipedia for iPhone (2 days after the much-anticipated launch) are looking for the Apple device. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is so wrong. iPhone belongs to Linksys, not Apple. Those who reason that most people are searching for iPhone Apple and hence this is fine to default iPhone to the Apple product are wrong. Does "Apple" default to Apple the company or Apple the fruit? Guys, this is wikipedia, not Macworld blog. Stop the fanboyism now. 12.47.208.50 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of people are looking for an Apple product. For an unbiased approach, include links to both iphone (Linksys) and iphone (Apple). --Whointhe 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this page actually looking for the Linksys phone but for some very odd reson i was directed to the apple phone, surely i should have been redirected to a disambiguous page. The Linksys phone is named iphone (Linksys) so why isnt the apple titled iphone (Apple) it just seems to me Wiki is becomeing Apple orientated, they copy and others inovate, so why should they have the first rights to Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.19.93 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 January 2007.

I agree. A disambiguation page has been created, IPhone (disambiguation), and iPhone should be redirected to that page, with the article about Apple's phone at Apple iPhone. There is no reason to assume that most people would be looking specifically for the Apple iPhone, especially given the extensive press coverage of the controversy. In fact, many people are looking for information on the controversy itself and what it is that Cisco is fighting for. It may be preferable to create a separate page for the controversy itself, or put such information on the disambiguation page. -- Istill316 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and exactly WHOSE innovation was Apple copying with this breakthrough new device? 65.184.114.198 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:NAME. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuately, WP:NAME applies, yes, but your interpetation of it is based on an unvertifiable assumption. since we cannot agree one way or the other, the disambiguation page is a great compromise. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 08:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME rules over WP:DISAMBIG. So, according to policy iPhone goes to Apple's iPhone regardless of your feelings towards this. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it may be correct that at this moment in time, more people will be looking for Apple's iPhone. However, that has at least a little to do with short-term buzz less than a week after the product's launch, but that doesn't mean that it will remain this way for the forseeable future. (Cisco could launch a Linksys iPhone marketing campaign and raise just as much interest.) A more timeless method would be to redirect iPhone to redirect to the disambiguation page. I implore the involved persons to remove their biases and look at this in a reasonable fashion. No matter what the result of the lawsuit, this is not the best use of Wikipedia. If Apple wins this legal struggle or settles, there will still be more than one iPhone out there, and if Apple does not win it, then the page will need to be renamed to the new product's name anyways. 209.181.233.233 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "i-" practically belongs to Apple. ipod. imac. So many products of theirs either have an apple or an i before it. Cisco is just sueing because they can. Stealthkey 14:16 13 January 2007

Yet again. If there is any debate. We should defer to a an unbiased viewpoint. Links to both Apple's product and Linksys' product should be provided. --Whointhe 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Linksys iPhone is already linked to at the top of the iPhone page. Scepia 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is about what is right and correct and not what is more "popular". The legitimate owner of the iPhone trademark in the US is Cisco. No question (USPTO). This is where the device was pre-announced. The fair way to solve this until resolved is to have the iPhone article be an article describing the litigation and in the header, obvious two links one to an article about the LinkSys iPhone and another one to the Apple "iPhone". 75.208.12.15

Yet another person who doesn't seem to understand the concept of WP:NAME. Please get acquainted with it then come back and rant. Also, could we please stop this whole talk about who gets the article name? Nothing is settled, lets wait till the courts have decided who gets it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, Excuse me, I don't really do much Wikipedia editing unless I note a spelling error or something really small. But perhaps it would be of interest to take a look at this ( * US Trademark Office Search Results for "iPhone" ) if you are going to argue that Cisco holds the Trademark, and therefore should be placed in the almighty iPhone location, perhaps you should note that Cisco isn't the only one. That link I added in the article was already removed, for a valid reason I guess. I agree that the Apple iPhone should stay, on the "iPhone" page. Update: The search expired, I searched for it here using the "New User Form (Basic)" search with the Keyword iPhone. -SL

I'm all for Stealthkey: the "i-Something" has been used by Apple since it introduced the iMac in 1998. The general public, being comprised mostly by Windows users, might not know other products for the OS X (Mac users's been familiar with) like the iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, iTunes, iPod and now the iPhone. One cannot imagine a move to register an "i-Product" being not an opportunism (or a possible opportunity) to sue Apple. Paulomatsui 19:50 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Infogear's original filing for the trademark dates to March 20, 1996 - before Apple started their iMac/iPod line. Cisco aquired Infogear years ago. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early 2006. While I agree that many people may be searching for the illegally named Apple Iphone, there are also many that may be searching for the Linksys Iphone. Being a fan of Apple does not give you the right to put in print what you deem as more "Apple friendly". Someone please do the right/unbiased thing and include links to both Apple's iphone and Linksys' iphone. Give people a choice on their own. Don't make the choice for them. Including a small, easily overlooked link to Linksys does not give it the same needed attention as the large picture of the Apple product, multiple links to Apple, and use of the Apple logo. --Whointhe 12:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia does not care who owns what. We only report on what is more notable. The Apple iPhone is more notable, regardless of if the trademark was "illegal" or not. Scepia 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I case someone sane reads this, I suppose it's most appropriate to redirect IPhone to "controversy about the iphone trademark" article for now and not have it redirected to apple, nor linksys. Kirils 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly it should be moved to a disambiguous page as people are searching for the Linksys iphone (Such as myself) and I don't think that apple should be the first thing we see. Hell, if I was searching for the Linksys iphone and came across this, I probably would have thought I got the company wrong and settle for Apple. And please, don't flame like a Apple fanboy. Cdscottie 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the fanboy comment, I find it incredibly likely, and i think its been said before, that people are searching for Apple's iPhone the Cisco's thing. By law anyways, they should've proved that they have an actual product called iPhone, not a box with iPhone stamped across it. They should've lost it anyways(http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/experts_cisco_lost_rights_to_iphone_trademark_last_year/) , and there could be a third company in a position to take the trademark all themselves. I say let it play itself, wiki doesn't care about the legallity of a name; only info about the product in question. -The Walkin Dude 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for insulting me with that Fanboy comment. I was just looking for the Cisco iPhone as my area just received VOIP coverage and I have come accustomed to using Cisco products for my networking needs. I was researching the advantages of VOIP and at the same time I felt like researching a phone for it. The reason why I feel that a disambiguous page be used is to be fair to people searching for each type of phone. I mean really, is it that big a deal that it doesn't automatically come to this page? Cdscottie 12:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To those that assume that the only reason the iPhone is here is due to Apple fanboys, this is not the case. It makes more sense for the Apple's iPhone to have the iPhone because due to the years of hype over the formerly non existent product, and the media coverage, it is fairly safe to assume that the majority will indeed be looking for Apple's product. It is the same reason that Apple is located at Apple Inc. instead of Apple, due to not everyone caring about the legal department or the tech world, it is safe to assume more people would be looking up the fruit instead, or Adobe is located at Adobe Systems when people usually just call it Adobe, but more people would likely be looking up the Mud Bricks. Redirecting it to a contriversy makes no sense, and neither does a disambiguation with 2 items. People will search for the Linksys iPhone as well, and for those people, there is a handy link at the top of the iPhone page.Sebastianlewis 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That "handy link" is a lame attempt to placate the Cisco/Linksys fan-base. Meanwhile, the Apple fan-base seems to have currently "won out" by locking the contents of the homepage itself and hoping that instead the Cisco/Linksys fan-base vent their frustrations here. :( Way to bait and switch Apple fans. It was mentioned earlier that Wikipedia does not care who owns what. Wikipedia is a collective consciousness that serves to educate, *not* market. The assumption that a search for iPhone indicates that people wish to learn more about Apple's product is wrong. If people want to learn more about the Apple product let them go to the Apple website. The iPhone links should educate people about with what the word itself is associated not advertise one product over another. Don't merely acknowledge a competitor that is legitmately lawful in fine print and hope they go away. Wikipedia cares about laws! Take a look at the blurb below that says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." --Whointhe 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that certain people here have astoundingly bad attitudes about this whole business. This isn't the end of the world, it's an online "encyclopaedia." Idiotic comments about fanboys aside (it seems anyone who remotely likes a product is considered a fanboy by some) - it seems to me that the purpose of naming articles uniquely (rather than having them in a heirchy, or a simple number) is to make finding what you want convenient (which, for some people, is the same as accessible because they lack advanced web navigation skills). I do believe that many people will want to see the linksys page (if only to find out how they managed to have a product that almost no one ever bought or knew about with an Apple-sounding name) but it seems likely (from the evidence on this talk page, and just extrapolation of the public's brand consciousness about the electronics sector, which is not very much at all) that most people coming to this article name (and linking to it from other articles) would be wanting to see about the Apple "iPhone" (or wahtever they call it). I think it's great to have a disambig link, but unless someone working at Wikipedia can show hard numbers to the tune of everyone really wanting to see the other page, I think moving it is utterly preposterous. I also think that the people that are apparently unhappy with Apple's use of the term for their own personal reasons should not be making bold, aggressive statements on this page to vent their frustration at the "majority" view (that is, that iPhone is more apple related than linksys, or whatever that random software program is... I wrote part of a software program that had 400000+ downloads, but that doesn't mean anyone still knows what it is). It's amazing to me how many people make ridiculous demands (move this back NOW or else I'll type at you more) and use insulting language, (because you disagree with me about trademark issues I don't understand because I do not have a law degree, you must be a mindless fanboy) all of which is clearly against the spirit of WP:DICK. I believe firmly in WP:DICK and if you don't all stop now, I'll type at you again! - JustinWick 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If the concern is "what are people most likely to be looking for", what about looking at something like site traffic rankings? This comparison at alexa.com shows that on average each day about 1% of all web users are visiting apple.com...but for linksys.com, it's practically non-existent.

Jason C.K. 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this discussion quite disturbing. I may not know much about the details of Wikipedia policies, but, it seems, there is little consensus on what the entries themselves represent. But, in turn, most of the contributors above do not have a clue about trademark law, yet they continue to argue legal points. Cisco does not "own" the mark legitimately or otherwise. They have reserved the right to use the iPhone mark by buying InfoGear along with its rights to the mark. However, once the mark is contested, it is no longer "legitimate" until a court says so. The fact that a mark is in dispute essentially invalidates any claim to undisputed legitimacy--that should be rather obvious from the term "undisputed". Just because Cisco claims that they have the legal right to exclusive use of the mark does not make it so--just think of all the "innocent" people rotting in prisons following their convictions. Some may indeed be innocent, but the majority just make that claim in an attempt to beat the system. Cisco's claim must be approached in the same light, as should Apple's claim. The fact that there are at least four other companies that have been using the name iPhone during the entire period of InfoGear's and Cisco's registration (including one that has been using the name long before InfoGear filed for trademark) should at least give Cisco fans pause. The fact that Cisco has abandoned one of the two i-phone marks should also make one wonder if they had any intention of continuing using the other. Apple's business tactics revealed in this dispute may be slimy, but they are not in any way unusual. Unfortunately, most of the posters here are not neutral--there might have been a few Apple fans mocking up this page in the past, but the majority seem to be Apple-haters. Before accusing others of posting biased edits, please take a long look in the mirror.--Lone.cowboy 07:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to call this page Apple iPhone. Iphone page should give information about the name disputes and offer links to Apple iPhone and Cisco Iphone. Capitalization (iPhone vs. Iphone) doesn't make difference with URLs.209.121.69.85 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Move/redirect of iPhone

I see that Roguegeek moved and redirected the iPhone article to Apple iPhone, saying[5] "redirected to proper naming". How is "Apple iPhone" more proper than "iPhone"? Other Apple products, like the iPod, MacBook, and AirPort, aren't so-named, and I think iPhone is more compliant with WP:NAME, which says, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". schi ^talk 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's name is iPhone, not Apple iPhone. Just as the Wii isn't Nintendo Wii. Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be moved back. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to help us. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back too, good call on getting an admin's attention. This page is gonna get busy pretty quick. fintler 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys should check out every single article on a product here. It's a Honda Accord and not just Accord. It's a Sony Ericsson S710a and not the S710a. And so on, and so on. Everything has the manufacturer first. This one with iPhone will especially have that considering iPhone is a name for several products. The iPhone page will more than likely turn into a disambiguous page. You guys should also check out naming conventions and styles at WP:MOS. Yes, please get an admin over here to check this out and set this straight. Roguegeek (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still iPod, iBook Wii, PlayStation, Xbox. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, maybe you should check out every such article first, since you clearly haven't! For example, why is the Mini not at BMC Mini? The answer is that the MoS suggests using a title that will most useful for searching and linking. All these guidelines do is suggest things that are rather common sense. There are rather obvious reasons, for example, that your examples have their respective titles, which have nothing to do with obeying your made-up rule. If you can point out a specific passage of the MoS that supports your argument, please do so. --67.172.164.179 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There, it's back to iPhone again. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected Apple iPhone as a redirect. You see, if you check the history section of both articles, you will notice that anonymous contributed to both articles. For the sake of not losing their contributions, I chose one and left it open. As you can imagine, we can't have two articles talking about the same. At a later date we will try to make a history merge between both articles, but it will be pretty hard because this article already has many, many deleted revisions. You can discuss later where to put the article, for now, accept contributions from everyone in this article. -- ReyBrujo 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, have you noticed that the talk page is still at Apple iPhone? :( -- ReyBrujo 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The name on Apple's site reads "iPhone". Since TV is pronounced "Apple Tee Vee", this could be read as "Apple Eye Phone". Lowmagnet 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the article here until everything is settled down (I am guessing a week more of gossips and stuff), and then you can request a move to see if there is consensus to actually do it. -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the page www.apple.com/appletv/ you will see that they always call the product "Apple TV" while on iPhone located at www.apple.com/iphone/ they call it iPhone, not Apple iPhone. Not once on the product page do they say "Apple iPhone", only "iPhone". Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's curious! In the keynote, Jobs had a slide up with the following names: Mac, iPod, iPhone, and TV. No iPhone in sight. I think the limited use of iPhone on the webpage may be an oversight. Who knows? We should wait and see like Rey says. --67.172.164.179 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page come up, not the Linksys iPhone? It's Cisco's trademark, and I'm sure the courts will agree. At least go to a disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.71.37.171 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Can Cisco employes please leave Wikipedia to unbiased people? Yes, I am talking to you 171.71.37.171. Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the only reason most people knew about the Cisco iPhone is because of all the speculation about the Apple iPhone. Most folks searching for it on Wikipedia will be looking for Apple's version, so the current method would be the most correct. -- Kesh 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When one types in iphone without a capital P, the redirect goes to the Cisco iPhone. As this article is named iPhone and the Cisco version is named iPhone (Linksys), shouldn't the redirect for iphone without the capital P be to this page, as it is correctly titled? I don't know if it should be changed. Thanks, Tcpekin 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it to this article. And btw, I find that this iPhone and linksys iPhone is the same problem like with Cisco and CISCO Security Private Limited. --Have a nice day. Running 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know what to do. Tcpekin 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Its actually a different problem. Cisco vs. CISCO. Cisco is the name of the company while CISCO is simply an acronym for another agancy. The actual name of CISCO is Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation. And there are no trademark violations. The official name of CISCO is Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation, not CISCO, but the official name of Cisco is Cisco Systems. And just so you know, there is a disambiguation page for this conflict, like there should here: Cisco (disambiguation).--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, trademark issues don't matter. Wikipedia only reports on official names, and we have no care for who owns what trademark. Scepia 01:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there are over a dozen articles with the term "Cisco" in them, rather than the two for iPhone. A disambiguation page would be overkill, in this case. -- Kesh 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I Think It Should Be Called iMobile? :D Sorry I Dunno How To Sign :( 09:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)121.6.108.126

OS X, not Mac OS X

it's operation system was never called "Mac OS X" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.178.142.237 (talk • contribs).

It's been called "Mac OS" ever since Mac OS 8. bCube(talk,contribs); 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they never did say it ran Mac OS X. It runs OS X (since Mac is their computer line, one assumes that OS X is distinct from Mac OS X, which is for computers). While ambiguous for the moment, it seems safe to assume that the use of "OS X" rather than "Mac OS X" is deliberate- particularly since it is extremely unlikely that they managed to get the full Mac OS X implemented on this tiny, tiny device. Does anyone actually believe an intel core 2 duo lives in there? I will make the change in the article. Danny Pi 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course they are using Mac OS X on it. They have an entire segment in the keynote describing that it's the same one that they are using on the desktop. "Wy would we run such a sophisticated operating system?", "We've been doing this on mobile computers for years", "It got awsome security and the right apps", "It has Cocoa..", "It has all the audio and video that OSX is famous for" <-- These statements would be nonsensical if Jobs wasn't referring to _Mac_ OS X. It might not me running on x86 or PPC, but if it runs on ARM.. who cares? It's still Mac OS X! Stipped down, sure.. but it's still Mac OS X! Steve pointed this out specificaly. He just did not say "Mac". Big deal.. He's probaly spoken about Mac OS X on Macs without saying "Mac" OS X. -- Henriok 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't apple have to release the code it has ported, if the license covering that code requires it? If it *is* a real OS X (as in codebase-similar to Mac OS X), then this should be released before the iPhone itself. So yes, it is REALLY important to figure out what's actually running on the iPhone, as it could be violating all sorts of licenses. 82.35.107.44 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No. You're thinking of the GPL, OS X is licensed under BSD.Darkov 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the citation stating that iPhones run the full version of Mac OS X, since it was a Newsweek opinion piece and did not make any attempt to justify its claim. The author of that piece seems to have just been confused. — Epastore 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not Mac OS X strictly speaking it's "iPhone OS X" since iPhones don't fall in the computer category. But I agree with Henriok, it's one and the same, maybe missing a few features found in Mac OS X, and with a different GUI, but still the same OS. Sfacets 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer the longer discussion here: Talk:OS_X. Thanks. — Epastore 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Rumor Mill

Before it was annnouced the iphone was one of those apple rumors that wouldnt go away esp the last 4 months i think the history and big thing we all know it was on the internet deserves its own section in the "iPhone Article" - QACJared

Might or might not be appropriate to include in the article. If someone wants to give it a shot, there is info at User:Schi/iPhone about the predictions, etc. schi ^talk 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Only notable, IMO, if a non-trivial news source gave mention of the rampant rumors. Was there, by chance, a NYTimes or CNet article specifically about the rumors? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I bet there might be. Most news articles about the product - both today and earlier - have at least mentioned the rumors, or how hotly anticipated it is. I just found this January 2006 BusinesWeek more generally about the Apple rumor mill. I'll look some more. schi ^talk 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6244705.stm Lewismistreated 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is anybody going to do it at all? -HuBmaN!!!! 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job editors

Good job editors! I'll look on the Apple site for the pic that is 'squashed' here and see if I can do something. I think I'm gonna have to break my Sprint contract for this baby! Hoooo-Yeah! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just uploaded a new pic of the iPhone with Safari, and chose the 'Macintosh Software' licensing, but that part didn't show up. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC

Oh yeah, that was ultra quick!!! -HuBmaN!!!! 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Vibrate?

Will this phone have a vibrate feature? gujamin 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's assumed in cell phones these days unless specifically stated otherwise. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would... it would cause havoc to the sensors otherwise... Sfacets 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It will have vibrate. The sensors will turn off briefly as iPhone receives a call when vibrate is switched on. Obviously nothing can be put on this site until Apple announces more specs making it officialSjenkins7000 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In Jobs' speech he specifically said there was a button to set the phone on vibrate. So.... I'm guessing there's a vibrate feature. 66.68.5.236 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Steve said it was a Ring/Silent switch, a-la Treo. I've been reading all over and have not seen any mention that it has or doesn't have a vibrate feature. mgahs 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Where in the keynote did he say "vibrate"? Do you have a timecode for it? gujamin 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

CPU type/speed?

Anyone know what type of CPU it uses or what speed? Is it the Intel XScale at 624 MHz? --70.48.68.147 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple hasn't said anything yet. Sloverlord 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting... http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2379 hmmmm. Sfacets 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps on adding Samsung Arm Cortex or something to this article. This is only a rumor and after even following the reference they added, there is only an engadget article speculating that Samsung has silicon in this phone. It never mentions exactly what they have in the phone and certainly never mentions Arm or that specific Samsung model. Please keep this off until we actually know what processor they are using. I think speculation in general is bad in an encyclopedia article anyway. 208.18.85.196 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

no one knows. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36857. Ruw1090 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Nvidia? http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/shownews.asp?title=Apple+chooses+Nvidia+for+iPhone+processor&num=9767 208.18.85.196 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco employees on this page

Can everyone who is a representative of Cisco, PLEASE leave Wikipedia to unbiased editors. 171.71.37.171 is one, and I'm sure the others are so as well. Believe it or not Wikipedia is very much capable of policing itself. Also, what you are doing will only make getting consensus harder. Please have a look at WP:NAME and you will see why this article is reserved for Apple's iPhone. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I welcome employees of any company (as well as those unemployed), so long as they abide by the five pillars. As it is 64.102.36.140 (talk · contribs) has edited here from a Cisco IP, and I'm guessing that is the same person as Whointhe (talk · contribs). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco employees should read the guideline WP:COI, on conflict of interest. schi ^talk 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Havok, I am appalled by your statement. At wikipedia, everyone (besides vandals) is allowed. If you don't believe that, perhaps it is you who needs to leave. Simply direct all cisco employees to WP:COI and also Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Then, if they do not ahere to the rules, then action must be taken (perhaps blocking). As for who gets the iphone article, not everyone agrees with you havock, as you can tell from this talk page and others like it. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KICK OTHERS OFF WIKIPEDIA.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive that when Havoc mentioned that "Wikipedia is very much capable of policing itself" he/she was referring to the wiki community, and not to him/herself. There are grounds for being banned from Wikipdia, and being disruptive after being warned for whatever reason is one of them. Sfacets 06:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I tried to convey was that Cisco people shouldn't come here and try and turn the tide as Wikipedia (meaning all of us) are pretty much capable of dealing with disputes and such as this without them coming here and screaming over the fact that iPhone doesn't redirect to the Linksys phone. If consensus decides to move the article then WP as a whole has decided. Wiki Fanatic I meant nothing along the lines of which you speak, and if you didn't understand me you could simply have asked what I meant. Seeing as you redirected me to so many pages, maybe you should have a look at WP:AGF. P.S. When I wrote "please leave Wikipedia to unbiased editors" I didn't mean physically leave Wikipedia, but leave the editing to people who can deal with this in an unbiased matter. Seeing as being biased will get you no where. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So by implication it is okay for Apple employees and fanboys, yes? This is not encyclopaedic, it is a free promotional feature based on Apple PR, internet rumour and claims made by people who have never even touched the phone let alone used it. Whether you agree or not, there is some justification for the "pro-Cisco" (sic) stance given the court case - and if you cannot understand and appreciate that position then you should not be editing here and claiming an "anti-bias" standpoint. Jesus, did you really call everyone here (except the Cisco employees, i.e. anyone who is not an Apple employee or fanboy) "unbiased"?! LOL! 62.25.106.209 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be a mixture of official Apple statements and unsubstantiated claims from people who have never even seen the phone 'in the flesh' so to speak let alone operated one 'in anger'. Given this, why haven't you complained about Apple employees on this page? I think I know the answer. This page is a free promotional advertisment for Apple Inc., not an encyclopaedic entry. 86.17.247.135 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out which part of the article is a "free advertisement for Apple"? Here we discuss how to improve the article, not just voicing opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Flip with iPhone (Linksys)

The trademark for "iPhone" has been registered since 1997, and is currently owned by Cisco. This article should be renamed iPhone (Apple) and the article currently at iPhone (Linksys) needs to be put here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.122.7 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Ahem. When you type Cisco, it will redirect you to Cisco Systems, not to CISCO Security Private Limited, because it's not so important. Wikipedia can consider disambiguation page, but really not direct redirect from iPhone to iPhone (linksys). And to sign, press 10th button from the left. Like that: --Have a nice day. Running 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not allowed to have commercial bias.Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests from the npov page. Obiviously, this violates it as it assumes apple will win the copyright dispute. It also sides with apple's copyright infingement.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

a) It's not a copyright dispute, it's a trademark dispute. If you don't know the difference between the two, then I would really consider refraining from chiming in. Besides, it's really not much of a dispute. Apple knows that Cisco owns the trademark and has been in negotiations with Cisco to use it for years, they just haven't signed the papers yet. b) The naming conventions stipulate that we name articles according to most common usage. I can assure you that 96% of people looking for iPhone are looking for this iteration of "iPhone", so it's gonna stay put. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia "choosing sides" in a corporate legal catfight. —bbatsell ¿? 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I meant trademark. And yes, I know the difference between the two. If wikipedia isn't choosing sides, why doesn't it list the correct product? A product which has already been released and is the true iPhone. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"I can assure you that 96% of people looking for iPhone are looking for this iteration..." I only see assertions here made by fanboys, not backed by any hard data. Also, it is clear that the iPhone trademark belongs to Infogear (later acquired by Cisco) has the full weight of prior date argument.

"It's not a copyright dispute, it's a trademark dispute" --- yes, we know very well. A similar example is Volkswagen AG, titled Volkswagen, not VW in Wikipedia. VW is redirected to Volkswagen because VW is a trademark of Volkswagen. Remembered Virtual Works and vw.net? We do not redirect VW to Virtual Works. The case is exactly analogous here, with Apple "iPhone"=Virtual Works's VW, Cisco's Infogear/Linksys iPhone=Volkswagen's VW. The result? The court rejected of Virtual Works' claims. Kommodorekerz 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know how I can say this any more clearly: Wikipedia's naming conventions could not care less about who owns what trademark in what country. Wikipedia's naming conventions care about what is the most common usage of a word in order to reduce the amount of time our readers (who come from ALL countries, almost all of which Cisco owns no trademark on "iPhone" in) spend searching for a particular article. People looking for "iPhone" are overwhelmingly looking for this meaning of iPhone, so we take them here. It's that simple. Trademarks have NOTHING to do with it. Take a gander at our naming conventions if you think I'm a "fanboy" (with nothing to back that attack up, by the way). —bbatsell ¿? 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to address your straw man: VW redirects to Volkswagen because it is overwhelmingly what people asking for "VW" are looking for. Decisions made by US courts have absolutely no bearing on the redirect. If, hypothetically, relatively equal numbers of people were looking for Virtual Works or Volkswagen, then we would have a disambiguation page at VW directing them to each article. It would be one extra click, but since we would not be able to predict which article the reader was probably looking for, then we wouldn't arbitrarily pick one to redirect them to. Once again, trademarks would have had nothing to do with that decision. —bbatsell ¿? 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing as if trademark has nothing to do with what people search for. That is obviously incorrect. VW redirects to Volkswagen because VW is a registered(!) trademark of Volkswagen and (only!) Volkswagen can use the name/abbreviation VW in a product/company that in anyway might overlap with what Volkswagen sells at the time of registration, i.e. aspects of automobiles, be it actually an automobile, an engine, ABS, or even car rental, by trademark laws (which are valid outside US too! And the ruling in US also has influences on many other countries). Otherwise, people would not be looking for VW at all, they would be looking at Volkswagen instead. The trademark is part of the decision why people would probably looking for Volkswagen when they type VW. Kommodorekerz 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All reputable sources out there, call this device the iPhone. Let's leave it at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which sources would that be? I've seen numerous sources referencing the linksys iphone. As well the trademark quite clearly belongs to Cisco and until a deal is signed or a court case is settled they don't have a claim to it. And as its already been pointed out, they have it with prior date as well. There is no reason iphone couldn't be a disambiguation page and create the iphone (linksys) and iphone (apple) articles and/or redirects, and in the interest of retaining a neutral point of view that would be appropriate. Otherwise it would seem that wikipedia is is endorsing one of the other.--Crossmr 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As —bbatsell ¿? pointed out, trademark has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia articles take priority when one result is expected to be the most likely result people will be searching for. In this case, the overwhelming number of searches are likely to be for the Apple product. If we were to take your advice, this would have to apply to every duplicated article name, even if there are only two articles in question. -- Kesh 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As always, your source for that, or is it just your assumption?--Crossmr 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it two ways: 1) yes, my assumption. Can you honestly assume more people will be searching for the Cisco product? 2) do a web search. What are the top results? -- Kesh 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If the concern is "what are people most likely to be looking for", what about looking at something like site traffic rankings? This comparison at alexa.com shows that on average each day about 1% of all web users are visiting apple.com...but for linksys.com, it's practically non-existent.

Jason C.K. 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reputable sources continuing to use "the iPhone" to refer to the Apple's product on articles published after Cisco's announcement to sue Apple over trademark infringement. Certainly the beeb hadn't use that phrase for the Apple's product in question for articles published in the last two days (as a simple search on BBC news reveals). Kommodorekerz 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as Apple calls it iPhone, it stays iPhone. Regardless of lawsuits, trademark infringement, or other non-issues everyone keeps bringing up. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Smartphone?

An editor had removed the Smartphone category from the article, claiming that the iPhone wasn't one. I reverted. However, his argument is that "A smartphone must be able to run native applications that can be loaded or unloaded from the device." Anyone agree? The article smartphone does claim that "A key feature of a smartphone is that additional native applications can be installed on the device" - but I question that (arbitrary?) requirement since no citation is provided. Just thought I'd toss it out to this crowd to see what the opinions are. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

75.209.74.41 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) The Wiki article is very clear. It is one of the main differentiation between SmartPhones and "high end feature phones". Third party applications. It is a deliberate choice on Apple's part for good or bad. But it is a choice for now.

How is the iPhone not a smartphone? It's virtually a portable computer. Additional apps will be able to be installed; what other smartphone manufacturers call applications, Apple calls widgets. Sjenkins7000 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

that's what I'm saying - but he's buggin' on the fact that "native apps can't be added or removed" or whatever. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the "smartphone" tag for the same reason. An Engadget article supports the claim as does an interview which is now confirmed by Eddie Cue (Apple's VP of Applications) and Phil Schiller (Senior VP of Worldwide Marketing) that Apple's "iPhone" won't accept third party applications. I'm not sure about this "virtually a portable computer" claim either. WiZZLa 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, it's now confirmed by Steve Jobs in an interview with the NYTimes and one with MSNBC. Quotables are "“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers." and "You don’t want your phone to be an open platform...Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up." WiZZLa 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that confirm? That Jobs feels people "don't want their phone to be like a PC"? That's fine. But the issue here is whether iPhone is popularly considered to be a kind of "smartphone", and I have yet to see some kind of reliable source defining smart phones as only something that can run third party software. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought my "update" was clearly a reference to my previous comment regarding whether or not Apple's "iPhone" would accept third-party applications. Did you read the articles? Just because something is "popularly considered" to be something, doesn't mean it actually is. Maybe smartphone should be edited as nothing there is shown to have a reliable source either. WiZZLa 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, smartphone should be edited, which I requested of those editors yesterday. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well when smartphone is edited, make sure the information on it isn't what is "popularly considered..." WiZZLa 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant; just how Wikipedia works in simple black and white: iPhone cannot be called a smartphone according to the current accepted definition of the term? Fine: we'll just arbitrarily redefine "smartphone" to fit the iPhone! Problem solved! How many of you had a problem with the definition of smartphone on 8 January? 86.17.247.135 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not many people seemed to have a problem with it before Steve Jobs declared the "iPhone" to be a smartphone, not only that, but it was "popularly considered" that a smartphone should allow third-party applications by many including "mobile experts." It seems "popular consideration" is only valid in some cases, like when it's beneficial to one's own side of the discussion... WiZZLa 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Wizzla, a Smartphone - just like a PDA - should have the ability to run third-party applications. This is also the consent of the industry since every other smartphone/PDA out there can run third-party applications. 81.233.73.177/HSB

No third party applications therefore the iPhone is *NOT* a Smartphone. It is a deliberate choice. 75.208.57.121 20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me that consensus. Running third party applications is not a requirement to become a smartphone. If so, please show it to me where it is stated. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and no citations to support such a claim at smartphone. The closest that article gets is saying "A key feature of a smartphone is that additional native applications can be installed on the device. The applications can be developed by the manufacturer of the handheld device, by the operator or by any other third-party software developer." Seems iPhone fits this requirement, since (presumably) the various widgits, GMaps and other apps are applications developed by the manufacturer or third-party that can be added/removed by the phone. Definition doesn't seem to require that the user is able to add/remove applications. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that what is generally understood is that a SmartPhone is a phone that is *open* to third party developers. Like the Mac is, like Linux and Windows are. That means that third party developer can build real applications. All the Smartphones today support in general Java, C and or BREW solutions for third party development. The Apple announcement is very clear in that Apple does *not* want third party developers. In fact for phones in this category this may be the iPhones biggest differentiation. The LG phones already has a large touch screen and a similar user experience and in 6 months many other phones will have been put forward. All of them with the ability to build thrid party applications. So in that respect one can anticipate that the iPhone will be different from that perspective. The only mitigating factor is the widget support. But widgets are hardly applciations. Time will tell. Apple could decide to change that position. But for now developers are not wanted. For the better or the worst. That is very clear. And the understanding of most in the market is that a SmartPhone is mostly a camera phone with the ability to run custom applications developed by an ecosystme of third party developers. 75.209.65.98 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that a smartphone requires the ability to install 3rd party applications. Steve Jobs has stated that this is not going to be a feature on the device. Therefore, we should remove all "smartphone" references. The iPhone is a very impressive feature packed cellphone, but not a smartphone. If there is no further activity on this page, then I will remove the smartphone references. StayinAnon 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious that a smartphone requires the ability to install 3rd party applications. The ability to install applications is the focus here, and Apple has confirmed that the iPhone has such capability. Whether those applications come from the developer or from a 3rd party does not take away smartphone status from a device, as long as such applications run natively on the device.--68.90.109.129 10:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No specific definition of "Smartphone" exists, but its generally concidered to be a phone that is able (and open for) running 3rd party apps. While iPhone will install and run new applications from Apple, or its partners, it will not allow 3rd party software to be installed on it. This phone is so locked down, its not worthy of the Smartphone title. Mcduck 11:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article it is stated & sourced that Apple will be having 3rd party apps, however through a "controlled" process...I would imagine much like videogame consoles today have 3rd party developers but they are licensed and must adhere to quality standards. Even if this were not the case, the fact that it can accept additional native applications (even if 1st party only) makes it a smartphone by wikipedia's definition. Unless you can build consensus that smartphones require unlicensed 3rd party native apps, it's a smartphone. Also, it would be inappropriate to edit the article based upon "no specific definition" and "generally concidered" (you need sources and/or consensus)

---Jason C.K. 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

yes I agree with our IP poster - apps CAN be installed - thus it's a smartphone - the 3td party bit is a red herring. --Larry laptop 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The iPhone is as much of a SmartPhone as a Sony Ericsson T610, except the T610 can support third-party applications. 82.35.107.44 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the classification is disputed, I've reworded the introduction to avoid any controversy, and moved the claims to an independent (stub) section. IMHO the iPhone 'does' run third party applications, it has a fully capable web browser. The apps will be sandboxed, but I don't see how that runs against the definition of Smartphone. Diego 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with the camp that says we need a more authoritative definition of what smartphone is. #1 The iPhone isn't out yet, it's difficult to say what definition it will fit (once we have an authoritative one). #2 It's widely assumed that, just as you can buy iPod games now on iTunes, you will be able to get extra USER-INSTALLABLE apps for your iPhone. #3 It's unknown if these apps will be strictly 1st party, licensed 3rd party, unlicensed 3rd party, etc. The only way in which an iPhone is not a smartphone as has often been referred to in the past is that the extra user-installable apps are very unlikely to be unlicensed 3rd party, at least initially (Apple exec quotes say there are no 3rd party opportunities "for now"). Does this make it not a smartphone? Who says? Why? My opinion, regardless of what a claimed "authoritative" site says, if a phone has a flexible, powerful, extensible s.w./h.w. architecture, with advanced convenience features, more sophisticated software abilities, and a larger display than a typical low-end cell phone, that makes it a smartphone. If someone says we should be going by the "popular" definition, what is that? The opinion of us computer/cell phone geeks? There are plenty of less-informed non-smartphone-using people out there that might call any phone with voicedial a smartphone, do you really want to go with the most "popular" definition? According to P.C. Magazine & PhoneScoop, the 2 biggest sites I could find in a quick search, iPhone fits their definition of smartphone.

Jason C.K. 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Split iPhone trademark?

As the trademark section grows in length, I'm wondering if we should split it into its own article, say, iPhone trademark dispute. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As it grows, that would be a good idea. Right now, it's no where near the limits for it's own article. Roguegeek (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. As it stands now it is better here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added information about the use of iphone's name in domain names other than iphone.org owned by Apple (the relevant bit, including iphone.net owned by Cisco, was deleted by Apple fanboy User:Kesh the first time round). It looks like iphone.info is up for sale. It would probably grow a lot longer if we include secondary TLDs such as .co.uk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommodorekerz (talk • contribs) 22:29, January 11, 2007

Excuse me? Please do not resort to name-calling. I reverted your edit because of the wording, which was extremely POV slanted towards Cisco. I'm maintaining neutrality on this article, but that applies both ways.

Honestly, I wish people would just stop editing the article as it stands. This has become a frenzy of edits with half-facts, POV-pushing on both sides and generally sloppy editing. This is Wikipedia at its worst, and I'm appalled. We need to slow down and only cite facts about the article subject, not speculation and every little press release about the trademark dispute. -- Kesh 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why when I added quotes from Cisco it is a POV push, but the equally POV quotes from Apple are treated as neutral, as if only Apple's spokeperson calling Cisco "silly" is not POV and is balanced. Also, reporting only on iphone.org owned by Apple since 1999 (December is missed out there) whereas Infogear/Cisco owned iphone.net since January 1998 is deliberately suppressed is not POV? Also mentioning iphone.com, created before the two, which is not a subsidary of Apple was Appled(is it a word now just like slashdotted is?) is not POV. Maybe my wording needs a bit of improvement, but removing the information on domainname registration and Cisco's own stand while promoting Apple's unjustified bashing of Cisco's legal obligation is clearly POV. Kommodorekerz 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. The red text from your post is what I was referring to, aside from the link. The link you referenced I had no problem with, but it was encased in very POV text. Your new version is neutral, which is appreciated.

My choices were to rewrite your wording, which I had difficulty finding a more neutral phrasing for; or simply undoing it for now, and adding the links in later. I chose the latter. I apologize if that offended you, but that seemed the most practical solution at the time. I was undone by the speed with which people are editing this article. I think The World Will Not End Tomorrow is relevant here: people are editing too much, too fast, for no good reason but "scoring points" on the article.

Finally, I don't think the comments from Apple about "silly" lawsuits belong anyway. Heck, the whole trademark dispute would be best without any quotes at all. It just needs the facts. I honestly had hoverlooked the "silly" comment,in the flurry of too-quick edits, so I'll thank you for pointing that out and remove it immediately. -- Kesh 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Update - I edited the section to try and make it more neutral... but the more I read it, the more I think that the two comments from press releases need to be deleted entirely. I've commented that part of the section out for now, until we can reach consensus. I think the commented section just needs to be deleted, as it really just consists of the two companies sniping at each other through press releases, which has no real relevance to the article. -- Kesh 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put back the reference to BBC's report [6] for reference of Cisco's decision to sue. The "silly" quote does appear in the report, but so does Cisco's justification, as one would expect from a beeb's news article. Kommodorekerz 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. Thanks for working together with me on this! -- Kesh 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236 - Perhaps a trademark dispute page is warranted now, this has certainly taken some bizarre twists and turns. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What about these 2 products? http://www.telephonemagic.com/teledex-voip-hotel-iphone.htm and http://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Skype-Ready-Phone-Black/dp/B000I0U5HU? Will Cisco sue them too? Shouldn't Cisco sue them first since they are already selling products with the same name. Ikenn 11:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy between LG KE850 (a.k.a. LG Prada Phone) and Apple iPhone

Be very careful dude. Mention of LG (and Rio, Creative, Commodore, Sony and Doug Engelbart) can get you seriously in trouble with the Apple fanboys. Save your energy for when Jobs (and then immediately the fanboys) claim something really stupid, like Apple invented the computer. 86.17.247.135 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The LG KE850 has already won the iF product design award 2007. Pictures of it was released before the iPhone. It was even speculation that the LG was infact the iPhone [7]. Kricke 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Voice Activation

All reports that I have heard either confirm there is no voice control on the iPhone or that there is no evidence to suggest it. I suggest removing this information under specifications Scottydude 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and go ahead and remove it yourself. Unsourced inaccurate information may be removed by anyone at any time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done so. Agreed, this is unconfirmed speculation, so it has no place in the features list. -- Kesh 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I love the way people always say be bold, but then when you are, someone always leaves you a really pissed message on your talk page. 68.161.91.131 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Be bold doesn't mean you're always right. I've had my bold edits reverted/edited too. I've had others that became a permanant part of the article. Anyway, this is off topic for the article. -- Kesh 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

About the name

An interesting reading. -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting, has quite a few statements of fact in it, it would be good to incorporate some of those facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Blog

Here is a simple view on the Apple iPhone that looks reasonable: The Smartphone and Camera Phone Blog One thing that stands out to many is that Apple needs to get a third party application developer program going asap. Else the iPhone is likely to become irrelevant. 75.208.12.15 13:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be unfair to say that the lack of developer support is a shortcoming. Nobody knows. What is known is that it is a strategic decision. 75.209.23.23 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPhone article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just more linkspam. It's all the rage. Every two bit operator trying to promote their crappy pages. Can we at least delete this stuff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually I don't agree, we should probably keep it. Doesn't look like spam to me. Neither put up by Apple PR or Microsoft PR! There is no advertizing and no promotion and pretty insightful comments on that blog. I just read it. It seems constructive and helpful to the talk about the article. In particular they discuss the accelerometer, the developer program and the impact on the indstry. There is really no downside to have the link there. No commercial content at all, in fact no hyperlinks. Just a flat file. 75.208.145.38 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam doesn't have to be commercial, or directly commercial. If this guy is promoting his blog (which he is) he's getting something in return for posting something irrelevant on this page. Anyway the point is that the blog has no useful information on it. Darkov 22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks like anti-Apple. Not neutral for sure. Today's post says that "eve the iphone will go the way of the Newton..... it iwll generate a lot of innovation"... That's not nice! So question to everyone: There is controversy with the iPhone, understantement... But the article reads like a spec sheet except for the name litigation, which really has nothing to do with the iPhone. In the interest of encyclopedic completeness, should we create a section that is relevant. Maybe something like "Industry positioning and reaction"? HuskyMoon 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is linkspam. We should delete it from this page. It is the author's thoughts on phones. It isn't even specific to the iPhone, and even that would be wrong, because as zimzalabim points out, this page is for talking about the iphone ARTICLE. As for "should we create a section that is relevant. Maybe something like "Industry positioning and reaction", in a word, no. For a more elaborate answer, please see my post under Talk:IPhone#Exhaustive_Link_of_Criticisms.2C_Shortcomings_and_Future_Directions

Jason C.K. 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Apple may lose the "iPhone" trademark battle

Apple's defence is that they are the first to use the name in a mobile phone. The lawyer for Cisco will simply point out that Apple has spent the last six years threatening to sue any company anywhere in the world who try to incorporate the term "pod" into their products - even when said products are not portable music players (or in some cases even consumer electronics). (Never mind the fact that before the iPod came along there were already many products - including electronic and music-related - that used the name (as any guitarist, for example, will happily tell you).)

Bully-boy tactics: what goes around, comes around, Jobs. 86.17.247.135 17:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So what can we draw from your rant that is useful to the article? There are many public forums where you can vent your spleen, maybe you could consider one of those next time you feel like expressing your opinion. This page, however, is for discussion about improvement of the article.

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's relevant to the section about the copyright disagreement. What do you think? As Apple have claimed that they have a trump card, and this article has a section on the subject, don't you think there is some relevance there? Or don't you like anything negative (but true) to be added? This is a free product placement promotional feature for Apple, not an encyclopaedic entry. 86.17.247.135 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What you've posted is basically an essay, which has no place in the article. If you find a reputable source that says the same thing, then you could cite them in the article. -- Kesh 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any facts, with suitable references? Only teenagers and people who's emotional development is about as far along care about who wins or loses or what is comeuppance for whatever else. Here we try to deal in facts. You seem entirely bereft of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs).

So Darkov, I am "bereft of facts" am I? So, you dispute that Apple have claimed they have the right to use the iPhone name because it is for a different product from Cisco's do you? Interesting. And you also dispute that Apple have ever tried to sue a company using "pod" in a non-mp3 playing product, yes? Looks like you are the one who has a problem with "facts". Let's see:

"We are the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cell phone, and if Cisco wants to challenge us on it we are very confident we will prevail." -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6250511.stm

"Apple Fights Use of 'Pod' by Others" -

http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple_Fights_Use_of_Pod_by_Others/1155674540

And I just picked out the first of thousands of results from Google searches. Go on, try it yourself - you might learn something. Oh and by the way, I think the above links are called "references". Off you go to amend the section.86.17.247.135 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Jobs was playing a hand when he introduced the iPhone before Apple and Cisco ironed out an agreement. I think he is hoping that in the next six months, people will come to think of it and know it as the iPhone, even if Apple loses the suit and has to rename the iPhone to Apple Phone, or whatever. Six months is a long time in the media with all of the marketing and hype around it. Just get this phone into a tv or movie star or musical artist's hands in a video, tv show, movie or commercial and every influential mind is going to want an 'iPhone' because that is what they will be calling it no matter what Apple has to rename the thing to. It has happened before and most likely will happen again. Cisco will win the lawsuit, but it will have lost the name, in the publics' minds anyway. Protector of the Truth 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so both these things happened, now what is your point? Companies do these things all the time. They don't have feelings - they're companies. Much more interesting is this which has verifiable facts.

Parts suppliers?

Why are the suppliers of parts for this item noteworthy for encyclopedic mention? Neither iMac, PlayStation Portable nor Xbox, for example, mention their suppliers. Methinks this should be dumped. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia and our mission is to build an article that has "all there is to know about the iPhone", knowing the part suppliers is most helpful. If it is missing in the other articles we should add it there, not substract it. In fact it would be great to have pictures of the inside of the iPhone with call lines telling us, the kids, and the world where the parts are. It would be great to make this standard for any device. Wiki would be more complete for it and less like an advertising spec sheet for makers of such devices. What do you all think? HuskyMoon 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Scepia 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying and we agree 100%: The article right now is the Apple fact sheet. That just a collection of facts. if we now start writing about the insides etc... of the iPhone we will start writing about how the iPhone works, what makes it work etc... Those aren't facts. That's in-depth analysis. That is in the spirit of the great Encyclopedie. Something to be proud of and that will be appreciated by all readers as this information is not easy to come by. An Apple fact sheet is about everythwere and nobody nees Wiki for that. That's pure PR/Advertising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HuskyMoon (talk • contribs)

Good god, no - impact on popular culture? yes, impact on competitors? yes suppliers of parts? no. Why would a general reader care WHERE the parts come from? --Larry laptop 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"our mission is to build an article that has all there is to know about the iPhone". Sorry but you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Please take some time to read our policies... the first paragraph of WP:VERIFY is a good start. AlistairMcMillan 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We are encyclopedists carrying the spirit of Diderot and Dalembert. That's why we congragate and work together at Wiki. Not having a description of part suppliers, how they relate to each other etc.. would be like have the article on gravitation just say "Force that between two objects" and never have a discussion about the nature of that force, the laws that describe that force or what that force means for objects around the universe. Someone who has never read or heard about the iPhone should read the article and know "all that there is to know about the iPhone" (within reason). Different people need to know different things. ˆ know that I'd love to know how the parts are spread out on the boards, who makes the accelerometer, how it actually senses portrait or landscale, why it works better than the systems that I've seen before etc.... That's all cool. And nice to turn to one place to find acurate information without PR spin, ads and agendas. HuskyMoon 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your heart's in the right place, to be sure, and opinions will rightly differ on whether or not something like a listing of parts manufacturers belong in an encyclopedic dissertation of a product. Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other. What I am absolutely certain of is that any information that appears in the article needs to come from a verifiable source. That's how we build trust in the content we present in the encyclopedia, and, just as importantly, it gives readers who are interested in a particular aspect of a subject a starting point from which they can research things further. -/- Warren 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. So why not have that section as a placeholder signaling that we are looking for the correct information. We already know for example for sure who makes some of the part. They are usually second-sourced. That's all good. By having the section there we will get good verifiable information over time and improve the quality of Wiki. In other words there is no downside in having that section. I wonder why it was removed. Next to each part we have a qualifier as to whether it is correct or speculation and what the source is. What do you think? HuskyMoon 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If a proposed section is in need of "qualifier[s] as to whether it is correct or speculation", then that section should not be included. See WP:VERIFY and, in reference to list of suppliers, WP:NOT. What would you suggest next, a list of the people who built it, shipped it, created the advertising campaign, built the booth.......--ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should stay focused on the issue: When you buy an iPhone you buy all the parts in the device and most of us are most interested in the insides. If we don't do a good job at it, other sources will do a better job than we would. To address your point every word at the edge of knowledge requires some qualifier, including the Apple fact sheet that this article has turned into. There is no more useful information in this article as there is on Apple.com. In fact there is much more on Apple.com. That means that we are failing and have been neutered by the Apple PR, spin machine: We simply reprint their marketing material. We are better than that aren't we? In fact I believe that this is in the very best interest of Apple: Knowledge is good. That's why we are pasionate about Wiki and what it means. We all work hard at it, so I think that if we all try to understand each other's point of view we can make a positive step forward. There are a lot of rules that can govern Wiki, but that of "useful knowleddge beyond reasonable doubt" is a good one. Reasonable doubt is a good criteria. Used in every major courthouse. There is no better one usually.

That's seems a long way of saying "I'm not really interesting in following existing guidelines, polcy and accepted good practice" - if you want to change any of those, feel free to put forward the relevent suggestions. However individual item pages are not the place to do that. General readers are NOT interested in the parts inside a mobile phone - geeks are. --Larry laptop 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd follow that logic, who is the reader? Where should the information of what is in the iPhone be found? A special Wiki for more technically aware people (like our generation, I mean sun-25 who grew up digital)? I don't think of myself as a geek, but I really like to understand how things work and what is inside. That's the first thing that I wanted to know about the Wii. I can go to the Nintendo website for the spec sheet. But not for real knowledge. There has to be a difference between an accumulation of data facts and knowledge. My understanding from the spirit of Dierot and Dalembert (which are still fresh in my studies) is that their focus was on knowledge. It is clear from looking and reading the great Encyclopedie. IMHO that is what we should be pursuing. I've tried to think about your comment but it sounds to me more like censorship then a thrust towards expanding knowledge. Am I missing something? HuskyMoon 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes an undertanding of censorship to start with - something I cannot engage in as a private individual here. A special Wiki for more technically aware people (like our generation, I mean sun-25 who grew up digital)? just for clarfication I'm not under-25 that was a long time ago. You seem to be confused about what wikipedia is, it's not to expand knowledge about everything under the sun, it's to produce well-written and concise articles on subjects. --Larry laptop 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and if you want to name-drop, it helps if you get the names right, it's DiDerot and D'alembert. --Larry laptop 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Husky, please read WP:VERIFY. Come back when you have "reliable sources" on the iPhone internals. Until then there is nothing for us to discuss. AlistairMcMillan 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alistair, thank you. I agree. What do you think about including the section with the part suppliers and the components and incrementally filling the blanks? Would this not have the side-effect of prompting for verifiable sources and structure our article for the future? HuskyMoon 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a fabulous idea. Once the product is complete, has been released by Apple and we actually have reliable sources on the final components that are inside it. AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

now I might still disagree about having the section but I'll hold judgement until I've seen it - which I guess will be in 3 or 4 months time. --Larry laptop 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alistair, I can see your point. I agree. HuskyMoon 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A listing of parts suppliers seems more in-depth than a general encyclopedia ought to have. And who will keep it up to date? Don't suppliers change constantly?

Jason C.K. 07:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A2DP

How did the specifications at http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/specs.html of:

Wireless data: Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) + EDGE + Bluetooth 2.0

morph into

Integrated WiFi (802.11b/802.11g), EDGE and Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR and A2DP

in the Wikipedia entry?

I've seen no reference to A2DP for the iPhone. To the contrary, the Apple iPhone headset shown breifly during Job's product intro was clearly a mono (HS/HF like) device, not a stereo A2DP one. Likewise, the shown iPhone stereo headphone with integrated mic was clearly a wired device, not a BlueTooth one.

Is there any real evidence for A2DP inclusion in the specifications? John0902 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I spent about 8 seconds Googling and found several sources saying that it does have A2DP, including one that is very critical of the phone (1 2). However, in my quick search I didn't come across any reliable sources so it should probably be removed until it can be confirmed. —bbatsell ¿? 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... those sites might've gotten the A2DP information from here, for all we know. -/- Warren 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the edit that added "EDR and A2DP".[8] The external link added at the same time lists neither. AlistairMcMillan 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Making the iPhone article better and improving on the Apple Fact Sheet

Please take your time and go to the article and compare it to the Apple fact sheet.... Do we want to just reprint fact sheets? Our job is to make sure that the article reflects "all that there is to know about the iPhone". My suggestions are as follow, three categories.

1.Inside the iPhone: Re-establish the parts suppliers list. This is important knowldege. Knowledge is what Wiki is about 2. Developers: Describe the third party developer relationship. Windgets but not applications. For now. At least that is what transpires from the NYT interview. That is an Aplle decision. Most Cingular handsets supports downloads from third party Java applications. It is an important part of the iPhone: Focus on maintaining the functional integrity of the platform and the user experience. There is a developer program and it's Widgets. That good and useful information. No java spagheti code. 3. Positioning: Describe the relative positioning of the iPhone with the other camera-phones, mucis-phones. The iPhone is a Great Music-Phone (iPod) with a great Camera-Phone (Editing software, great screen, automatic switch from portrait to landscale etc...) That is part of the Apple, iLife experience. That is really what the iPhone is about: A camera-phone inside an iPod all nicely integrated with a great user experience.

I think that this will help the iPhone article carry more real knowledge and be most helpful to anyone wanting to know about the iPhone.

Thoughts? HuskyMoon 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're aking for opinions, speculation and original research, none of which belong here.Darkov 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point Darkov. However, if we can write about Saddam Hussein surely we should be able to do something more than reprint Apple's fact sheets. There may be more lobbying for this article actually than most, which is very interesting. HuskyMoon 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:BOLD then - write what it is you think should be in the article and other people will then edit it in line with policy. Oh and your "there may be more lobbying" is awfully close to suggesting that editors here have an agenda - if you have something to say, don't use weasel words - come out and say it. --Larry laptop 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry, it seems to me that there are a lot of emotions pro and anti Apple running in this page. In fact I would think that it is pretty obvious. And as such there is a lot of lobbying on behalf and against Apple. Of course the dispute over the trademark makes it even more difficult. All in all I think that the team is doing an admirable job under lots of pressure. HuskyMoon 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AOL Instant Messenger

Will this phone be able to have AIM on it? I've never tried SMS before, and I don't want to pay for instant messages. I'm a noob. Sam 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

According to David Pogue, no 3rd party applications can be run on the iPhone. Keep in mind that AIM would require use of data, and if you don't have WiFi in your area, you will have to pay for the expensive EDGE data network from Cingular. Scepia 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So we'll have to use WebAIM to use AIM? And what about ICQ? I don't know much about it, but I've heard it's fully compatible with AIM and it's SMS. I don't know. Can somebody help me on this? (Keep in mind, noob)Sam 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please fine an iPhone discussion forum. This is a talk page about an encyclopedia article. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming by Wikoogle

Please keep an eye out for edits by Wikoogle. He seems intent on linkspamming this article to promote his rather lame blog, in particular he attempts to cite his blog as a reference for facts in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 22:30, January 16, 2007

Suckered as well. AlistairMcMillan 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'd just concluded that Suckered was a sockpuppet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

If he keeps at it, we will get it blacklisted (unless of course Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or someone like that stops by for an exclusive interview). --Larry laptop 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is stopping by his website, with good reason. If it happens I will eat a printed version of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

He's also perpetrating copyright violation by copying text verbatim from Wikipedia without licensing his blog under the GFDL. For shame. Darkov 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco possibly lost rights to trademark?

Not sure to the veracity of this claim: "Cisco lost rights to iPhone trademark last year, experts say". Source is ZDNet blog. Worth putting in the article? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, as i trace all your edits, comments, deletions at iPhone, SmartPhone it is clear that you have a strong Apple bias. The definition of the SmartPhone got tweaked to fit the iPhone, and every point that you bring up if relevant has an Apple bias. You can do better than that. It's easy to click on your user name and for everyone to see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.114.219 (talk • contribs) 17:43, January 17, 2007

For pete's sake... I stand by my edits and I have no conflict of interest. If I wanted to take the time to scour over my edits, I'm sure there are plently where I'm removing fluff, POV, and uncited infomration on all side of the issue. Perhaps your efforts should be directed to improving articles, rathing than hunting down a perceived bias. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would wait. From my understanding blogs are usually not counted a relaible source and if this is accurate there should be many more media outlets picking up on this in the near future due to all the attention the iphone has been receiving. --67.68.154.224 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone else refuted it. So no. Scepia 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't seen that. Good catch. (As an aside, I'm guessing Apple will just buy the trademark from Cicso, especially since they just made $1B in profit last quarter alone...) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth checking on stock symbols and market capitalizations before speculating. AAPL: about $80 Billion, CSCO: About $160 Billion. So we have two giants battling and neither one is going to bully the other one. Cisco has twice the market cap of Apple, yet Apple is big enough to stand-up. Logic says that both parties will look for a mutually beneficial relationship. Otherwise it will go to court. There is a lot of ower in having a registered trademark that precedes the existence of the iPod. By the same token we all hope that they will come to an agreement. These are big boys fighting, and they all know what they are doing. HuskyMoon 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

I keep adding a tone tag to the Specifications section, only to have it removed or when it is turned to prose reverted to a bullet list. Just because PS2 and SLVR has a section that is similar doesn't mean we should add a specs section that looks like the back of a software box sitting in a store. Find me a featured article with a similarly bulleted specs section and then we're talk'n, but if you can't then I vote the section should be turned back to prose. What do people think? JoeSmack ^Talk 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles with similarly bulleted specs: Commodore 64, Nintendo Entertainment System, F-4 Phantom II, Convair B-36, likely more. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! This talk page has made it into WP:LAME

Over the Lowercase tag edit war! Good job, guys! --BenBurch 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Topics with many fanboys and detractors usually make it there, so it is something expectable. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! We're special! Though you'd think all the other cruft on this page would be more notable than the lowercase template... -- Kesh 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ReyBrujo, please stop being a jerk. Calling people 'fanboys and detractors' isn't helping anything. 1ne 08:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple logo graphic in opening sentence

I removed the logo with the following edit summary:

"Apple iPhone" is already stated. A graphic of Apple's logo doesn't need to be injected into the opening sentence. It breaks word flow and doesn't provide any useful information.

This was reverted (the logo was re-added) with the following edit summary:

disagree, it adds valuable information on how the iPhone is portrayed...

I contend that the logo does not, in fact, add any valuable information, and possibly no information at all. The only thing I can think of is that it shows that Apple places its logo with the iPhone in its advertising and promotional materials; this is in no way remarkable, since Apple places its logo with all its products in its advertising and promotional materials.

Additionally, three words into the opening sentence is a poor place to have a parenthetical note that contains a non-ASCII graphic. It definitely breaks the flow of the sentence. The inclusion of the logo may be worth mentioning later in the article, and perhaps in better context, but it seems distinctly out of place here. Comments? --S0uj1r0 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if Apple uses the symbol before the 'iPhone', like they do for the AppleTV for example - however IF they do it does merit inclusion, and the opening sentence does seem the best place to present it.

The logo in question is a low quality PNG, so it can^t really be resized to fit correctly without loss of clarity. Sfacets 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the logo once on Apple.com. The problem I have is fair use. That logo is mostly decoration, and the Apple logo is copyrighted. Scepia 06:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But we can use it if we're representing the product it is being used for, that is not against copyright. Jasca Ducato 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the Apple logo go under Trademark, not Copyright? Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd... We are writing about the Apple iPhone and we are concerned about being sued by Apple.... The tail is wagging the dog. But the dog can live without the tail. Not the tail without the dog! 75.208.254.38 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right...anyway [9] still refers to it a "iPhone", not "Apple iPhone" or "[Apple logo] iPhone". I say remove it.--Here T oHelp 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One click away to [10] reveals the name with the stylized apple icon. Perhaps they can't decide either. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how using the apple icon to represent the product's own marketing representation would be a fair use violation. Also, check out Apple_TV, which has the icon within the article title itself. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We should always try to cut out on fair use when it is decoration, which i think it is here. Apple TV is the official name of that product, and iPhone is the official name of this product. Scepia 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's a fair-use issue with the image, then bring the image up for deletion on those grounds. See WP:IfD. -- Kesh 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that image is used on Apple TV, were it makes sense. But iPhone is only put with the logo 1 time on Apple.com Scepia 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in my reading of copyright law in this instance, the image in question is a glyph from an Apple-supplied font (located at Unicode U+F8FF). Under U.S. copyright law, actual use of a typeface cannot be copyrighted or trademarked and is in the public domain. You can find Wikipedia's PD summary on fonts here. The image licensing should be switched from FU to {{PD-font}}. —bbatsell ¿? 04:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I found  in the Futura Lt BT font. It shows up as  in the font for the edit window, but it appears as the Apple Logo in this font. Have fun.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't help. I can state for a fact it doesn't show anything but a blank box on this machine, meaning folks without that font won't see the proper logo icon anyway. -- Kesh 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Processor Specification

Engaget says there was a Reuters report, but I couldn't find it, it sounds like hearsay. I think it's premature to add that spec. But having said that it's almost certainly an ARM. There isn't really a reliable source on this. Darkov 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I removed it from the article. The closest I could find was this article which merely postulates that the chip is an ARM. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Intel's man in Italy says it's an XScale processor developed by Intel but sold to Marvell in late 2006. I added this information as well as reference. It seems like a very reasonable choice for Apple. And yes.. XScale is ARM based. -- Henriok 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if that says very much. You're essentially saying it's an ARM, which what an XScale is essentially. The architecture has been mucked around with somewhat, as is Intel's wont, but it performs much like modern ARMs. I would be truly shocked if this phone did not have an ARM in it. Chances are it has four or five. But really it's not very interesting speculating or repeating rumours. When the phone gets released someone will strip the phone down and tell us what it contains, but we all may be disappointed because I get the feeling that it will have one or more large chip packages with the Apple logo it and a cryptic number. Then we'll have to speculate some more. Darkov 14:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Andy Ihnatko article

Andy Ihnatko of the Chicago Sun-Times had 45 minutes with the iPhone and apparently received solid answers to some key questions regarding touch screen as fingers only, 3rd party apps, OSX version, etc. Full article is here. I'll leave it to other editors about if/how to incorporate into iPhone. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice find ZimZalaBim, you are "wired" to this stuff! The article is very interesting. The bit about the developer program is important and absent from our iPhone article. I find what he says pertinenet and reasonable. On the keyboard side, the Treo has a very poor experience compared to the latest Blackberries. That's my personal experience. But it is all subjective. The notion of a soft keyboard is not new and it is terrific to see and new and improved implementation. Would you say that the par that is meaningful for inclusion here would be the developer support part? Good work finding this source. It's articulate and clear. HuskyMoon 10:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, developer support part is quite pertinent. Still would be better to get it coming directly from Apple though, and not through a reporter's review. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Zim, it is an important part of the iPod's "total package". Andy Inhatko has it directly from Apple.

Zim, one more thing. Something that we don't have in the spec and that was announced by Apple are the sensors. In particular the "Accelerometer". The light and proximity sensors are very specific, but the accelerometer provides for new funtionality. So maybe a subhead: Sensors with in the body: Accelerometer, Proximity, Light. Note that the Accelerometer is significant enough to warrant its own Wiki article and a distinguising feature of the iPhone in some ways. And offcially announced by Apple.HuskyMoon 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find there is no separate proximity sensor in the iPhone. It almost certainly uses Synaptics' ClearPad technology, which has proximity sense as a part of its function. See this, at the bottom of the page. That page is also interesting because it puts the whole LG/Apple 'controversy' into perspective. The enabling tech for both phones seems to be ClearPad, their concept phone makes this plain. Most of the evident innovation in iPhone seem to come from this, although Jobs makes it seem like they are all Apple's. Of course the attention to detail and flair that Apple bring is what sets it apart, but at the end of the day expect to see a lot more phones that use a similar interface. I'd love to add some of this to the article, but none of it is confirmed as of yet. Hopefully one in June someone will pick through the flame wars and find this info. Darkov 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Ive

Why no mention of Ive? His page says he designed the iPhone so he deserves a mention here as much as Jobs. 86.17.247.135 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Got a reference for us? -- Kesh 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it says it on both Ive's page and Apple Inc and neither have a reference so I assumed it was an indisputed fact. Guess both pages will have to be amended. 86.17.247.135 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive is the industrial designer for most of Apple products. From the iMac to the iPod.202.128.52.61 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't thing it's particularly notable - he's VP of industrial design (or whatever) at Apple and the his is very collaborative, so it might not actually be exactly true. Pasting his name over every popular Apple product is just buying into the hype. Better to fashion a more balanced description of his influence on the Apple page or on his page. Darkov 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are specific quotes from him regarding designing the iPhone. They can be found at Time. I cited them in a new IPhone#History section I just created in the article. --Jason C.K. 19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article too trivial

There are many, it's a problem with the general tone of the article, like a mobile phone user guide. For example :

"The iPhone allows conferencing, call holding, call merging, caller ID, and integration with other iPhone features. A playing song fades out when the user receives a call. Once the call is ended the music fades back on without delay."

"Text messages are presented chronologically..."

What next? - When a person makes a call, the iPhone emits electromagnetic microwaves?

Also, how can the phone run a "stripped down version of Mac OS X 10.5" of the mac desktops when the former has an Xscale processor and macs are x86.

I can think of a couple ways for this to be accurate, the most obvious being the existence of a non-public OS X build for Xscale, but until Apple tells us what they did it is just speculation. Regardless of the method used, the iPhone using a variant of Leopard is what's being reported. [11] MFNickster 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should be restructured like the Nokia N95 article.

thestick 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people are grasping at straws. It's basically a lift from the Jobs presentation. Maybe people have been affected by Jobs' renown Reality Distortion Field and have turned into zombies mindlessly recounting their master's words. But back to the article, I think these petty facts should be judiciously removed. You're essentially right about the tone. But where you are wrong is in regards to the stripped down version of the OS. Basically they just recompile it for the new processor (or more properly new architecture or platform). They would have to rewrite some stuff, but not much. BSD Unix, the OS from whence OS X came, runs on everything from digital watches to super computers. They're all the same deep down inside, just a matter of scale. Credit must be given to the designers and programmers of BSD for providing such a scalable OS. Apple would have just pinched the source from some ARM compatible distribution for the stuff they needed. Anyone can do it. It's all free. Apple just do it well. Maybe we can add some of this to the article, I keep on seeing commentary along those lines.Darkov 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X uses stuff from BSD but there is a hell of lot more to it than that. They don't use the BSD kernel. They don't use the BSD window server. Their APIs don't come from BSD. Their file system doesn't come from BSD. I could go on forever. Please read up on the subject before sharing your opinions. AlistairMcMillan 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? The Mach kernel was developed as a drop in replacement for the BSD kernel. Mac APIs run on top of Unix APIs in many cases. There are a million Unix filesystems. No-one in their right mind uses an X window server. So what? Do I have to go into mindless, off topic, detail to satisfy nerdy trainspotters whenever I try to make a point? Generally speaking Mac OS's lineage is BSD. Yes they added and removed stuff. I didn't say it was BSD. It's not Linux, is it? What should have I said (without delivering a page long treatise on Unix development history)? Not only are you being off-topic, but you're being condescending. You assume I'm ignorant because I'm concise. I'm confident of my knowledge - you seem to be so insecure that you have to belittle others. Darkov 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (Oh, and if you really want to continue this mindless conversation, please take it to my talk page where I can really have a go at you and spare people who came to this page expecting to read something about the iPhone)

Whoa, calm down Darkov. This is very close to a personal attack. -- Kesh 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, it was carefully crafted as such. Anyway it was in reply to a personal attack. I'm just using negative re-inforcement to discourage such behaviour. Darkov 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not an excuse. Please see WP:CIVIL. And Alistair's comments, while blunt, were not an attack. -- Kesh 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, he said I was ignorant, without any evidence. Don't want to warn him too because he's an admin? Darkov 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. Your comments were incorrect. If you feel you were mistreated, please feel free to bring up an RfC. -- Kesh 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How were they incorrect? Have you got any basis for this or are you just issuing a dictum from up on high? That really illustrates your lack of balance. I have consistently presented a rationale in my replies meanwhile I get these pronouncements in reply. Darkov 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What you should have said is "Unless you have sources we don't know about, then all we can do right now is talk about stuff from Apple's PR because Apple are the only ones who have access to iPhones and everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced." How about something like that. Instead of your rant that all Apple had to do was "pinch" some stuff from "some ARM compatible distribution" and recompile it with the "scalable OS" that they got from "BSD Unix". AlistairMcMillan 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're avoiding my points. I can reply as I see fit as long as I stay on topic, which I was, and it was hardly a rant, it wasn't angry or emotional. I raised valid points relating to people's confusions about what is possible with the OS. Your mocking my casual speech just re-inforces my earlier point. Since this is off-topic, no more replies from me unless you take it to my talk page. If you dare. Darkov 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL by taunting. Warned. -- Kesh 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. I'm responding with great restraint, and a little humour. Anyway I'm very much of the WP:FUCK school. Wikipedia is full of petty individuals who go around making righteous threats in the name of the rules, ignoring the positive contribution being made. They're a scourge on this place. This is a classic example (keep in mind that it all transpired within minutes of the article being created). Darkov 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a note, your own link seems to reinforce that you have a very aggressive manner of dealing with other editors. That is not a good thing on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's what you take from it? You don't think I should be annoyed by people tagging a new article incorrectly, persisting even after they admit they don't understand the subject matter? Then they threaten to have the article deleted after 30 minutes, while I'm working on it, even though taking one's time is a policy here, stubs abound, and collaboration with others (over time) is the norm? This is what I mean when I refer to your lack of balance, your one sided response to my contributions. It's quick to judge, assumes bad faith and is inflexible. You take issue with my style, which is direct and outspoken, but that's irrelevant if I make valid and reasoned contributions. Why shouldn't I make it plain when people are detracting from the of quality the work? I give no worse than I get. Your narrow and rigid interpretation of discourse around here just pushes the site toward mediocrity. Darkov 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Me telling you that your statements about Mac OS X are wrong, is not a personal attack. Example personal attacks: comparing User:86.17.247.135 to "teenagers and people who's emotional development is about as far along", comparing thestick or myself to a "nerdy trainspotter", accusing me of being condescending and insecure, and accusing J Milburn of being "bored and lonely". And that's just from me glancing at your edits to this Talk page and the Comparison of wireless data standards Talk page. Even your recent comments to Kesh border on a personal attack. Please take a few minutes and read through Wikipedia:No personal attacks. AlistairMcMillan 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you suggesting I was ignorant was a personal attack. You attacked my valid contribution, I criticised your attack. My comments reflect the behaviour and attitude I have to put up with - arrogant disruption of good work. I think it's very restrained considering. Anyway this is so off-topic. Why can't you take it to somewhere more relevant, a user talk page, or maybe the sandbox? Do the rules only apply to me and other people your disagree with? Is your exulted status beyond us serfs who must be silenced when we question the status quo? Darkov 12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my ignorance about the Mac OS X thing. thestick 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't apologise, it's a valid question, but it's a good idea to be circumspect when posting in public forums. Darkov 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "The iPhone allows conferencing, call holding, call merging, caller ID, and integration with other iPhone features. A playing song fades out when the user receives a call. Once the call is ended the music fades back on without delay." is important. We need to give some idea of what the features are. Not all phones have conference, holding, merging, etc. Is there a source for those, however? We do have to point out things that may be obvious (ie "it's a phone"). And not everyone instinctively realizes the music would fade out for a call, so we must make it obvious. Scepia 20:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Smartphone "controversy"

Does Apple refer to the iPhone as a "smartphone" anywhere? I can't see it in their press release or on their iPhone pages at apple.com. As far as I remember the only time Jobs mentioned smartphones in the keynote, was when he was criticising them. AlistairMcMillan 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alistair, I looked. The reference that I found was in the Jobs key-note. But more importantly maybe, we should talk about what the iPhone is, as opposed to "positioning". It is cearly a camera phone a multimedia player etc... As presently described. That's really pretty good. So the question is to pick from "Smartphone" or "High tech mobile phone that combines several functions typical of information appliances"..... In fact, I'd argue that that is a pretty good definition of a Smartphone. I like it better than the one that is on there now with PDAs etc... Which nobody really knows what they really are. Every phone has a calendar, contact list, notepad etc.... these days. In some ways it would be worth updating the Smartphone article? HuskyMoon 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It isn't up to us to work out how we think things should be defined. Please read our policies. WP:VERIFY in particular. If Apple never uses the word "smartphone", if over and over and over they call it a "mobile phone" then that is what we call it.

And as for the smartphone article. We can say how other people define "smartphone", we can't come up with our own definition. AlistairMcMillan 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So maybe it is worth mentioning it in the discussion page of the SmartPhone article. HuskyMoon 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the "smartphone" phrase. It's a class of device that's a commonly-used and commonly-accepted term in this field. Jobs also compared iPhone to smartphones, so it's pretty clearly a similar class of device. One thing is for sure, "high tech" is a bloody awful phrase to use in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.

Here's a few definitions I found:

http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=smartphone: A telephone with advanced information access features. Emerging in the late 1990s, a smartphone is typically a cellular telephone that provides digital voice service as well as any combination of e-mail, text messaging, pager, Web access, voice recognition as well as picture taking (the camera phone). Personal information management (PIM) functions found in a PDA may also be integrated.
http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci330613,00.html: The term smartphone is sometimes used to characterize a wireless telephone set with special computer-enabled features not previously associated with telephones. In addition to functioning as an ordinary telephone, a smartphone's features may include: Wireless e-mail, Internet, Web browsing, and fax / Intercom function / Personal information management / Online banking / LAN connectivity / Graffiti style data entry / Local data transfer between phone set and computers / Remote data transfer between phone set and computers / Remote control of computers / Remote control of home or business electronic systems / Interactivity with unified messaging
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2005/08/23/whatissmartphone.html: A Smartphone combines the functions of a cellular phone and a handheld computer in a single device. It differs from a normal phone in that it has an operating system and local storage, so users can add and store information, send and receive email, and install programs to the phone as they could with a PDA. A smartphone gives users the best of both worlds--it has much the same capabilities as a handheld computer and the communications ability of a mobile phone.

Jobs's efforts to discredit the "smartphone" label is a function of reality distortion field marketing trickery, and should be ignored in favour of presenting the device using commonly-used terms. -/- Warren 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with HuskyMoon's and Warren's comments above; I think it is taking WP:V a bit far to insist that this is not a Smartphone. Jobs certainly compared the iPhone with various smartphones (BlackBerries, etc.) Even if Jobs never specifically used the word smartphone, that doesn't prove that it's not a smartphone. Did he (or anyone from Apple) ever deny that it's a smartphone? In any case, per WP:V, there's plenty of third-party coverage that characterizes it as a smartphone, for example: this InformationWeek article and this Seattle Times article refer to the iPhone as a smartphone; dozens of other articles refer to the iPhone as competing in the smartphone market. I think it's useful to at least mention the smartphone characterization (which is obviously up for debate) and/or the contention that it will compete in the smartphone market. schi ^talk 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Schi, these are excellent points. In reading all of these references and given that most camera phones have PDAs and "computer like functionality", it seems to me that SmartPhone in today's market means "High-end phone". The kind that sells for more than a few hundred US Dollars.... That's what there is in common it seems... HuskyMoon 10:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm fine with all that. I just object to anyone adding content explaining why Apple are lying by marketing their phone as a smartphone,[12] when it doesn't seem they did or do. AlistairMcMillan 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

here you'll find an interesting article about the smartphone controversy: [13]. --87.167.240.140 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that at this time it is a bit semantics. Our own Wiki definition of a Smartphone is nebulous about programability. The iPhone does support Widgets. About half-way. But still. More importantly, pricing will define positioning. The iphone will be priced like Blackberries, Mobile Windows and Symbian higher-end phones and that is what most people refer to as "Smartphones" whether it is right ow not. I read someone who chracterized the iPhone as: The best camera-phone with a built-in iPod. That's probably as accurate as anything, but a long sentence. So why now a Smartphone: Costs as much, looks as big, sits on the same shelf..... Must be a Smartphone.... HuskyMoon 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jobs himself compared it to a list of phones that are 'smartphones' in his keynote. 'smartphone' is the best currently widely accepted category for the iPhone. DaisyField 18:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If it fits the definition, it should be classed as such in the Wiki. It seems clear it's a smartphone. BTW, here's 2 more defs:

P.C. Magazine: A telephone with advanced information access features. It is a cellular telephone that provides digital voice service as well as any combination of e-mail, text messaging, pager, Web access, voice recognition, still and/or video camera, MP3, TV or video player and organizer (see PDA).

PhoneScoop: A category of mobile device that provides advanced capabilities beyond a typical mobile phone. Smartphones run complete operating system software that provides a standardized interface and platform for application developers. By the strict definition, smartphones are distinct from PDA-based devices running operating systems such as Palm OS or Windows Mobile for Pocket PCs. While PDA-based devices usually have a touch-screen for pen input, smartphones usually have a standard phone keypad for input. Compared to standard phones, smartphones usually have larger displays and more powerful processors. Applications written for a given smartphone platform can usually run on any smartphone with that platform, regardless of manufacturer. Compared to Java or BREW applications, native smartphone applications usually run faster and integrate more tightly with the phone's features and user interface.

Jason C.K. 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

1st Sentance

Can we skip the whole smartphone thing and just say:

The iPhone is a handheld device combining ...,...,... functionality.

-Gomm 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the first sentence should be: "The iPhone is a combination multimedia player, mobile phone, and internet communication device developed by Apple, Inc. (Forget about mentioning Steve Jobs; how many products have the company CEO's name in the first line?). Second sentence: "The multimedia player component comprises of a widescreen iPod. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to include all the gadgits that it includes, then the first sentence should be: "The iPhone is a combination multimedia player, mobile phone, digital camara, personal digital assitant, and internet communication device developed by Apple, Inc." and we still haven't even noted that it is handheld. If we don't want to define it in terms of the bunch of things it replaces, then we have to define it as a thing with functionalities, and specify them. -Gomm 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Note sure why 'smartphone' is so important, especially since it's just a marketing term and a meaningless one at that. Why do we have to follow marketingspeak so slavishly when it's arbitrary and driven by commerce, not fact. My phone, the Nokia 6230i is not a smartphone (according to an article) but it makes conference calls, sends messages, does email, edits notes, takes pictures and movies, plays music and movies, has internet access and a browser and pretty much everything the iPhone has, except the large touchscreen. Can't we side-step this back and forth by just using plain English? Phrases like "an integrated device" or "multi-function device" or something. Maybe 'modern integrated mobile phone'? Surely we as editors have enough brains between us to think of something better than parroting marketing-droids? Darkov 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

As described by earlier discussion in this talk page, the debate is where "iphone" should link to, given that it can refer to both the product being released by Apple and the current Linksys VoIP-based phone by Cisco. Some of the points made include:

Majority of those looking for information on "iphone" are most likely looking for that pertaining to Apple's product. Wikipedia's policy for naming articles as they are "most easily recognized" might support "iphone" jumping directly to Apple's iphone.
Cisco owns the trademark for "iphone", used to describe a product that predates Apple's. Some argue the link should therefore reference that page.

Comments

I came to this page from the RfC page and, although somewhat interested in Apple's iphone, am removed from this naming issue. From the article standpoint, I'd suggest:

While Wikipedia's naming conventions do recommend articles be named as they'd most commonly be recognized, I see this as describing individual articles, and not implying that the better known of two articles should be given priority over use of a particular name. Instead the policy suggests to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" and another guideline encourages choosing names to avoid ambiguous cases Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)).
At the same time, guidelines suggest that a "moral right", including legal rights, should not govern article names, so it would not seem correct for iphone to link directly to Cisco's product on the basis of it owning the trademark. (See Wikipedia:Naming_conflict).
At least one user in the talk section reported arriving at this page looking for the Linksys phone, so it seems safe to assume that even if the Apple iphone were the more popular article, that ambiguity still exists. And while most people who type mac may be looking for Apple's computer, this still leads to a disambiguation page.

Altogether, to me it would seem most neutral and consistent with Wikipedia to rename this article iphone (Apple) and have iphone link to a disambiguation page. Akevin 07:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It should stay as is. When i search for Apple, usually i am looking for Apple Inc., but the page for apple is about the fruit. There is a reason for disambiguation pages - when there are less common uses. This is one of those cases. The Linksys iPhone only gained notoriety due to speculation over the Apple product, and if you ask an average person, you would find that they are more likely to be familiar with the Apple product. It seems common sense to mention the dedicated product proclaimed by Apple as a true innovation. I think we can agree that this product is different from most phones, whereas the Linksys iPhone is more commonplace. The trademark issue does not matter at all. Apple Inc. owns a trademark on Apple, and yet the page apple is about the fruit. Scepia 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This page should stay exactly where it is. This all comes down to one simple fact. If Apple hadn't announced their iPhone a few weeks ago, no one would care about the Linksys product. Even when Linksys announced their iPhone products in December last year, the only reason it was mentioned so widely is because of the rumours that Apple were about to release a product with the same name. See for example Engadget: Cisco -- not apple -- announces iPhone branded VoIP phones or Gizmodo: Linksys Not-Apple-iPhone Details and Photos. Even the BBC News talks about the Linksys release in December in the context of Apple's rumoured product: iPhone surprises technology world. AlistairMcMillan 12:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me respond to your three points in order: 1) The guidelines you mention basically just mean the article should technically be named "iPhone (Apple)". But nothing you say implies that "iPhone" should be a disambiguation page. The precision guideline you mention explains that the proper disambiguation technique should be used to resolve ambiguity when one name has different meanings. One such technique is primary topic disambiguation. So even if the page is named "iPhone (Apple)" "iPhone" should still redirect here. (cf examples like Harvard). 2) I don't believe anybody that has been on Wikipedia for a long time would argue against primary topic disambiguation, especially not based on the perceived ownership of some trademark. 3) I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Of course, some people are going to be looking for something else. Primary topic disambiguation does not assume everybody is looking for only one topic. Lastly, while it may seem "neutral" and in line with Wikipedia policy to you, well, I don't want to be rude, but I think you're showing your inexperience. Primary topic disambiguation is strongly ingrained into Wikipedia, and is clearly not trumped by a desire to be "neutral". --C S (Talk) 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It should continue to stay pointed at Apple's iPhone. If the concern is "what are people most likely to be looking for", then why not look at site traffic rankings? This comparison at alexa.com shows that on average each day about 1% of all web users are visiting apple.com...but for linksys.com, it's practically non-existent. -Jason C.K. 07:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I being the person searching for the Linksys iPhone, I don't believe that the comparison of website traffic should be played into this. Cisco sells their products mainly corporations and not end users as much. Apples has the Mac OS and the Ipod to create a need for people going to their site. It has no weight in the whole issue of the iPhone and should not even be considered. Cdscottie 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I compared all of Apple's site to all of the linksys site. The linksys site also has networking, entertainment electronics, telephony, smart home, webcam, USB, and cabling products to create a need for people going to their site. Some of these are clearly home-use (besides, aren't they a very common home-use wireless router?) or dual-use products. And by your reasoning...IF corporations aren't hitting linksys' site (who are you kidding, I've worked in IT at large corporations, we hit mfr. sites all the time), and users don't need to because linksys doesn't cater to them...then that means no one is hitting their site (borne out by traffic reports), but tons are hitting Apple's. Therefore, if someone is on the web, and they're looking for iPhone, they're clearly not looking for linksys iphone, because no one is looking for linksys stuff at all (I don't actually believe that whole chain, but it follows from your reasoning). The real answer is, much fewer people are looking for linksys iphone, as well as linksys in general. I suppose someone smarter and more interested than I can figure out a way to break out visits to the iPhone page vs. the rest of Apple's site, and the same with Cisco. There will still be a disparity so it seems like a waste of time, but if you really want to prove it out, go to it. And, given a disparity, that's extremely relevant. All wikipedia cares about is what are people commonly looking for. Web traffic will tell you that.

--Jason C.K. 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

vibrate

Can somebody put whether the phone vibrates or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobguy89 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Watch the keynote, steve says it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.6.119 (talk • contribs) 21:13, February 7, 2007

Excessive wikilinking within References?

I think our References are WAY too wikilinked! This seems counter to the Manual of Style. A reader is going to see a sea of blue and barely know where to click, or know that precisely where they click matters a great deal. Given that we want this to be easy to the reader, I have a hard time seeing the merit of linking anything other than the article itself. Not the author's name, not the source publication entry on wikipedia, and for heaven's sake, certainly not the date, nor the word "press release"! Just how confusing do we want to be? I think we are making it too hard for a person to effectively find the source material. I'm all for linking to facilitate surfing, but any time I'm doing 2 links right next to each other so they run together as blue (i.e.--"[[foo]] [[bar]]") I think VERY carefully about whether I really need to do it. But in our References we'll constantly have 4 links right next to each other! --Jason C.K. 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)