Talk:iPhone/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

CPU

Processor is an ARM1176JZF running at 620MHz, the best source I could find is: http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/01/iphone-processor-found-620mhz-arm/ Nickcich (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

request to add...

I found an article on the web that says the iPhone currently has 27% of the smartphone market. The URL is "http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/21/iphone-grabs-27-of-us-smartphone-market/". Can someone add this for me, since this is a protected article? Thanks, 74.163.236.92 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly what that article says — it's talking specifically about a 3-month period of time (though it certainly doesn't make that clear in the title or introduction). Also, I'm not entirely positive that RoughlyDrafted would be a reliable source. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, there's also another article from the same site which adds doubt to those statistics. I've also heard from other sources where all phones sold to AT&T by Apple is counted in the total sales, which many pundits would say is a totally wrong way to go about it. Virtually all other smartphone vendors consider a phone being sold when the customer actually places the phone in his hands. For all we know, there could be thousands of un-sold iPhones in AT&T's inventory - even though Apple's already counted them in their sales totals. Groink (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada

It will out in Canada in Q1, 2008 in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.2.238 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SIM lock section editing

I edited the SIM lock section just now. There is no proof that Apple deliberately messed up iPhones with its updates. Anytime a 3rd-party messes around with the code in any device, you cannot expect the manufacturer to update the device without failure. Testing of the updates are done in-house, and do not take account any non-authorized modifications to the firmware. And, updating firmware is not like installing patches on an operating system, i.e. firmware updates do not merge into the existing firmware. Rather, updates replace the firmware. That is why non-official mods like adding applications suddenly disappear when you do such an update. I'm an expert in the area of firmware - as I've developed firmware and ROM-BIOS software for several companies - including Phoenix Technologies, C&T, etc. BTW, in the Software/Applications section, there is even a cited sentence indicating that Apple does not deliberately damage the iPhone. So until someone can prove with forensic evidence and/or an email or other correspondence demonstrating that the firmware updates purposely mess around with the functionality of the iPhone, please leave this information out.

I also removed the mention of unlocking the iPhone. It was poorly written to the point where it couldn't be fixed. Also, the criticism should not be used to tell readers how to go about eliminating the feature. Instead, a new section outside of the criticism section should be developed. Groink (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section AGAIN?

Is this the 15th time someone has tried to create a criticism section on this page? Criticisms are best done in the body of the article as opposed to being given its own section, this has been hashed over again and again. Much work was done to integrate criticisms into the appropriate place and yet every time that happens someone mistakenly creates the section again. It looks like I'm going to have to fix this article yet again. -- Atamasama 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've applied the fixes. No more criticism section! Groink (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow Groink you are the best, I hadn't had a chance to get to it, but you fixed it better than I probably could have. -- Atamasama 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

iPod vs the iPhone

I suspect this has been discussed before but why iPod without "the", while the iPhone with "the"? -- Taku (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be the version of English being used by the editor. From what I've read, British English and American English differ when it comes to using articles. As an American, I would refer to both the iPod and the iPhone using "the" preceding the proper noun. And, by reading articles by both Americans and British media (CNet, The Register, etc.) I would tend to believe that using "the" followed by iPod or iPhone is the norm in any version of English. Unless others object with supporting information, I would go ahead and make the edits the way you see fit, per Wikipedia guidelines. In the guidelines, only if: 1) the subject matter is regionally specific, and 2) the majority of editors are practicing a certain form of English (ex: using colour instead of color), I would go ahead and use a more universal form of English in your edits, because I don't see either #1 or #2 in this article. Groink (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Officially, its never preceded by "the", for example, look at the conditions from iPhone AppleCare – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the document carefully... In only one instance throughout the document did they leave out the article "the" before iPhone, which was the title of the document. In document titles, it is normal for the writer to leave out articles, which is referred to as "reduction" or "omission." And in support of what I mentioned earlier, they did in fact use "the", such as "the Apple-branded iPhone" (remove "Apple-branded" and you would have "the iPhone".) Otherwise, throughout the remainder of the document, the iPhone was addressed as a "covered iPhone." So this document serves no evidence. And, in using Google, searches for the phrase "the iPhone" for any apple.com site reveals 37,000 hits. Groink (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

iPhone without the "the"? over 3 million. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, do you EVER study what you're actually posting? No. All the first 20 pages of that so-called search was 1) a LOT of pages contain sentences that START with the word "iPhone", and 2) there are other ways to add the word "iPhone" into a sentence, such as "an iPhone", "le iPhone", "da iPhone", "bricked iPhone", "dead iPhone", "私は iPhone"... But you are very entertaining, as I thought I had a crappy day until your links came along... Groink (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on! It may sound wrong and not be in line with conventions of the English language but it is always said and written by Apple with just 'iPhone', no 'the'. Phelim123 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Multimedia? Duh?

How can a cellphone not be "multimedia?" If it makes noise and has a display it's multimedia. This can probably be excluded. -FoxMajik 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "multimedia" does have a criteria, much like "smartphone", among other things. In your analogy, an alarm clock is a multimedia device. See what I mean? Groink 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

About the photo of a photo of a photo of.....

A photo is worth a thousand words. But if it takes a run-on sentence to describe a photo, then maybe - JUST maybe the photo isn't delivering the message effectively. Case in point - the photo demonstrating the functionality of the iPhone's built-in camera. Photos are supposed to fit the context of the section it supports. In this case, if a reader can't make ends out of the photo without reading a lengthy description of it, then IMHO the photo is a bad one. I recommend removing the photo and wait for a better one to appear. I've said this dozens of times - it isn't a travesty if an article or section lacks a photo. AND, a bad photo is better than having no photo no photo is better than a bad photo. Unfortunately, I don't have an iPhone. But if I had one and wanted to demonstrate the camera's functionality, I would take a photo of a famous monument or other object, and then place it side-by-side with an archived photo of the same thing from the Creative Commons collection. Usually this would be considered original research, which is taboo on Wikipedia. But for the sake of demonstrating the camera's functionality, something along the line of what I mentioned should be fine. Groink (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a poor picture is usually better than no picture, but I've said before that a misleading and/or confusing picture is worse than no picture. I think that picture demonstrating the iPhone is gimmicky and something simpler like you suggested would be an improvement, but the picture and caption that exist are terrible. No offense to the person who posted it, because it's a clever idea, it just doesn't work. -- Atamasama 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Mistake on my part... I actually meant no photo is better than a bad photo. How the heck did I mess that one up, huh???? Hehehe... Groink (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I replaced the image with more simple, straightfoward one (read boring) which I found in flickr. While this new one is a lot less confusing, I am not sure if it adds any value to the article. It's always a good idea to discuss features along with images, but I guess I don't know how images can help the discussion of the camera feature. I put the image just to stimulate the discussion. I'm more inclined to the no-photo option. -- Taku (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Taku, just FYI the picture you were trying to use at the beginning of the article (with the orange background) has an outdated version of the software on it (it is missing the iTunes store icon). The original image was more accurate. -- Atamasama 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That was completely my mistake. It was pointed out by others and has been rectified. I could have been more careful, though. I was more worrying about hacks, and didn't realize the iTunes Music Store icon was mission. -- Taku (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

unlocking/firmware

What about information about the unlocking and the firmware updates of the iphone? If you want me to write it , just post it in my talk. --Kelvin_HO^{wiki flight simmer(talk)} 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was tried before. In short, it is un-encyclopedic. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't take lightly "hacks" that take a given device beyond its "official" use. For example, one could write a section where an iPhone can be used as a detonator to ignite explosives. The best solution would be to write a new article, but I've seen that done and deleted on Wikipedia as well. Therefore, I don't think the non-existence of the unlocking information is by accident. Groink (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Trademark Issues

As this page is protected, I am not comfortable editing it (I am a newer user), however, I think the current trademark issues that Apple is struggling with in Canada is notable. The iPhone is still not available in Canada due to the fact that Comwave Telecomm currently owns the iPhone trademark in Canada. As of yet, they have not reached an agreement. The dispute has been ongoing for more than a year with no resolution in site. Here is a reference: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/10/11/tech-iphone-trademark.html (SJM (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

The iPhone is not available in many places on planet Earth. It isn't the responsibility of this article to cover each situation. Although that article mentioned is a reliable source, I've yet to see the situation addressed by any Apple executive or PR person. The only reason the Cisco case was mentioned here was that the iPhone wasn't available anywhere, and therefore it had a world-wide impact. If it wasn't for the agreement between Apple/Cisco, I think the phone would've been named something else. But now that "iPhone" is the official name, it becomes a country-by-country situation. Once the iPhone in Canada becomes official, then we can tack that onto the list of countries. But until then... Groink (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

why do these appear in History???

On December 1 2007, Tusmobil, Slovenian mobile operator, started selling "unlocked" iPhones without official contract with Apple, which caused a lot of confusion with Apple Europe, local media and local Apple representatives.

Spanish company SevenClick, based on information from a manager at Telefónica, announced on their technology blog that Telefónica Spain expects to be shipping 3G iPhones by May 2008.

The iPhone normally prevents access to its media player and web features unless it has also been activated as a phone with an authorized carrier. On July 3 2007, Jon Lech Johansen reported on his blog that he had successfully bypassed this requirement and unlocked the iPhone's other features with a combination of custom software and modification of the iTunes binary. He published the software and offsets for others to use. Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be for two reasons. First, there isn't another section of the article more appropriate for that information at this times, and second, with the iPhone being so new there isn't very much information to fill out a "history" section so it was put there to pad it out a little. -- Atama^(CHAT) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all conjecture. Even though it is sourced conjecture, it's still conjecture, and un-encyclopoedic. I'm erasing all the guessed release dates. Ehurtley (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a separate section for unlocking, I think there should even be a separate article on unlocking the iPhone, because it is unusual in the way that so many people want to unlock it and how Apple go out of their way to prevent it from being unlocked. Towel401 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

wrong cpu speed

The speed of the 1176 part is 412 Mhz after the 1.1.2 update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.75.138 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No Java support?

The article says

The iPhone does not support Flash or Java technology.

however the 2 sources it cites for this do not confirm the claim that it does not support Java. So at least the 2nd reference (the one to Markoff, John. That iPhone Has a Keyboard, but It’s Not Mechanical) which is irrelevant to that statement should be removed from after the sentence.

Then, further clarification is needed on this statement. It's written in the context of the web browser. Even if the web browser of the iPhone does not support Java applets, that does not mean that the iPhone does not support standard Java J2ME games such as Jamtris. If it is indeed the case that the iPhone doesn't support those, either, I think that needs to be mentioned separately. This is definitely relevant information, since that's a feature that most other modern cell phones have. 88.217.85.118 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=10189 Is this link clear enough? The company that makes Java is begging Apple to include it in the iPhone. Can't get more compelling evidence than that. Groink (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vista and XP 64 bit

It should be specifically noted that the iPhone/Touch models are not supported by Apple on Vista 64 and Xp 64 bit systems (those favored by hard-core gamers). The only known method of support is a dual boot with a 32 bit system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt003 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm.... We don't have to tell people what it will NOT run on. In the compatibility list, it lists Win XP and Vista, and mentions that only 32-bit versions will work. This is stated very clear. Groink (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The software section of the iPhone article just states XP and Vista - nothing about 32 vs 64 bit support.Jbt003 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.12.165 (talk)

You've got to read better before making these comments. Right now (and before your comments), the article says:

The iPhone is managed with iTunes version 7.3 or later, which is compatible with Mac OS X version 10.4.10 or later, and 32-bit Windows XP or Vista.

Groink (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Safari & iPhone specific websites

I would like to suggest that this text on the iPhone page 'The web browser displays full web pages as opposed to simplified pages as on most non-smartphones.' be updated to include a link to another Wikipedia page which lists links to websites that have iPhone specific websites! Like this:

"The web browser displays full web pages as opposed to simplified pages as on most non-smartphones but there are many websites that have developed an iPhone specific layout for users accessing their sites from an iPhone."

AndrewGoldy (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, I predict that website listing will be deleted very soon. That article violates WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL, where Wikipedia articles should not be used as a list of external links. Groink (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the modified paragraph then ??? Does that satisfy the WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL ??? AndrewGoldy (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it still fails. It has nothing to do with how you write it. The purpose of the article alone is what fails to qualify it as an acceptable article on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Video from the headset jack?

The Hardware>Audio section says that you can get video out of the headset jack with a "three way jack plug." This seems very unlikely to me, because they would either have to squeeze at least five electrical contacts into the jack or they would have to re-purpose the microphone contact. In addition, this capability would be unnecessary because you can get composite or component video and audio out of the dock connector using adapters sold at the Apple store. Plus, the Apple store does not sell this headset to video adapter, which makes me doubt its existence. I will probably delete that statement unless someone corrects me.Fluoborate (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been deleted, but here's a source for the fact that there's no video out of the headset jack: [1]. Enobeno (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What about criticisms?

Why is thre no section detailing the many various criticisms users and tech reviewers have regarding this product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.210.5 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because criticism sections are bad. Much work was done to eliminate the criticism sections that existed previously. The cricisms themselves still exist in the article, but only where appropriate. For example, the iPhone camera is not capable of video, which is mentioned when describing the camera feature. -- Atama^chat 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except of course, that there is precious little criticism anywhere in the article. There are statements made that "iPhone" doesn't do this or that, but nowhere does it say why that might be a bad thing or even bring up the fact that, yes, other devices do those things. Or how about the quotes from respected computer writers like David Pogue who make it clear that, as a device, iPhone is neat, but as an actual phone, it is sorely lacking? You don't want a criticsm section (which are discouraged but not called "bad" anywhere in the WP you linked to), then fine. But don't pretend that this article is already NPOV. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean a statement like...

David Pogue of The New York Times and Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal both tested the iPhone for two weeks and found learning to use it initially difficult, although eventually usable. Pogue stated use was "frustrating" at first, but "once you stop stressing about each individual letter and just plow ahead, speed and accuracy pick up considerably." After five days of use, Mossberg "was able to type on it as quickly and accurately as he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years," and considered the keyboard a "nonissue." Both found that the typo-correcting feature of the iPhone was the key to using the virtual keyboard successfully.[32][48]

...which is already in the article? -- Atama^chat 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, boys and girls, that Wikipedia is not entirely a Web 2.0 site as most people want to believe. Articles do NOT need to be fair and balanced. And, articles do not need to cover EVERY concern about a device. Maybe something political or religious should be balanced, but not certainly a piece of electronics. Also, that NPOV comment by anon is totally off-base, as inclusion cannot be used as a form of argument under Wikipedia. Rather than saying, "Well, so-and-so information is included...", it is better to fix those other errors. Groink (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

iPhone current capabilities

• Regarding Groink's edit on 03:23, January 16, 2008, he made the comment (while reversing some of my edits) "Encyclopedia articles are based purely on factual information available today, the iPhone can/cannot do X. "currently" assumes it will change someday - something an encyclopedia does not do.)"

--Ok, point taken, I'll accept that "currently" shouldn't be used. However "can't" and "doesn't" imply 2 different things. "Can't" implies it never could, never will be able to. Ok, this iPhone will never display 3D holograms, but MMS, that's a simple software change and certainly could happen someday. It's fine to say the iPhone "doesn't" do some things. To say it "can't" requires a higher standard.

--Also, you removed my statement about not doing video recording out of the box. I think that's wrong. There are programs out there right now that I've seen documented on engadget.com showing the iPhone doing video recording. So the iPhone does do video recording, right now. Just not out of the box.

--I'm going to wait a day or 2 then add SOME of my edits back in unless there's some replies here (I won't add back in "currently"). And I'll be changing "can't" to "doesn't" where I think it's appropriate.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your point about the difference between "can't" and "doesn't" is valid. I'd be interesting to see a link verifying that the iPhone can do video, both for this article and for my own curiosity. -- Atama^chat 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My previous edit had nothing to do with "can't" and "doesn't". It had everything to do with the use of the word "currently". For example, "The iPhone currently runs on 1.1.3." to me is a waste. Saying "The iPhone runs on 1.1.3." is perfectly fine. It is not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to keep reminding people that something is temporary or may change some day. Encyclopedias are not concerned about what will happen tomorrow. Encyclopedias are snap shots of today - especially Wikipedia. That's my foundation. Groink (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine. I will try to remember not to say "currently". And apparently you have no objection about whether I say "can't" or "doesn't". Ok.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not address "hacks", period. That's why, in the case of voice recordings, it is not an officially supported feature. This is why out-of-the-box is assumed in ALL Wikipedia articles - not just the iPhone and iPod touch articles. To start adding words that doesn't add any more meaning to the article is a waste. It is like me telling someone, "I'm at the corner of 3rd and Main Street. I'm currently standing on two of my feet, as I currently have only two feet, but that can change some day in the case I chop one of them off..." We should allow readers to assume to a certain extent. And it is not the responsibility of us editors to make sure that the readers know that there are officially supported features, and then there are hacks. If we need to keep telling readers that, "Remember now, although hackers have developed products that allow the iPhone to whistle Dixie and solve the quadratic formula, the features we discuss on Wikipedia are out-of-the-box." is on the edge of insulting both the reader and the encyclopedia concept itself. Groink (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, really? Is this a Wiki policy? Can you please refer me to the appropriate page? There are articles in Wiki on breaking DRM, overclocking your CPU, adjusting your car's engine parameters outside of manufacturer recommendations to speed it up, hacking products to behave differently (see CueCat, etc), etc. All these things are hacks. Why would an encyclopedia not mention a hack? Just because some vendor doesn't bless the behavior?

--Jason C.K. (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion is not a valid form of an argument on Wikipedia, per WP:INN (out of date, but it still holds true in many arguments on Wikipedia.) Saying that X and Y exist does not mean that Z should therefore exist. It means that X and Y are also wrong. It is not a Wikipedia I'm enforcing, but rather I'm taking the words of Wikipedia founder Jim Wales where his vision of Wikipedia is equal to an actual encyclopedia. I'm basically enforcing the norms you find in an encylopedia, and applying it to Wikipedia. Just because you can change the content of an article on a minute-by-minute basis doesn't mean we should therefore write articles in that same manner. There are no on-line sources that define everything there is to do with an encyclopedia, but in my 30+ years reading them for school and enjoyment, I have a good idea on what Jim's ideas are regarding issues like this. Groink (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is this an encyclopedia of what actually exists out there and things people actually do, or is it some marketing organization that only talks about the things of which "certain people" (like vendors) approve? So far all you've offered is your "feeling" that encyclopedias shouldn't talk about hacks. I don't buy that. So you're asserting anything in Wiki that talks about the fact that that people mod their home game consoles to play unauthorized games should be removed, as well as articles about breaking DRM, overclocking CPUs, and crazy engine modifications? That seems ridiculous. We don't talk about existing, even popular items, just because some vendor doesn't like them?

--Jason C.K. (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point that Groink is making is that (for example) in the article on CPUs, you don't have information about overclocking. Overclocking has its own article instead. Maybe some day there could be an article about iPhone hacks, or a few specific articles on noteworthy hacks or third-party programs for the iPhone. I don't know about a specific policy on not including hacks, but do please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should focus on what the iPhone can do now, not what it might do by repeating "this is what the iPhone does for now" throughout the article. -- Atama^chat 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what Groink is saying at all. He isn't talking about what's integrated into an article vs. split-out. He says "Encyclopedias do not address "hacks", period." Apparently in his view Wiki shouldn't talk about CPU overclocking at all. Or breaking DRM, or modding game consoles, or car engines, etc. And I'd reject anyway the notion that you can only talk about a subject (like hacks) when there's enough material for a separate article. Which, in the case of the iPhone, there actually is enough material for a separate article, I'm just not interested in writing that much. But thousands of people (at the least) are jailbreaking their iPhones, unlocking them, writing their own apps, etc. And there are at the least hundreds and hundreds of apps out there, some of them quite interesting & popular. Talking about existing, even popular, hacks has nothing to do with crystal ball. These things have been around for a while. "we should focus on what the iPhone can do now" Yes, and what it can do right now, if you're into modding it, is be used on non-AT&T networks, and have 3rd party apps installed, etc, etc.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems you're right, and I'd agree that Groink is wrong, and reluctantly suggest that his opinion of what he thinks that Jim Wales might think about the matter is irrelevant. While we are making an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and saying that something should not be included because Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have it is an even worse argument than WP:INN. Talking about hacks isn't against policy whether Groink likes it or not, and while inclusion isn't an indicator of notability, if hacks are common in Wikipedia and uncontroversial then the consensus of the community seems to be that they're okay.

My talking about Crystal was in reference to things that the iPhone can't do yet at all, but we hope will be able to do in the future, not things that it can do with 3rd party hacks. I don't really mind a mention somewhere about how iPhone capabilities can be enhanced with hacks, if it doesn't violate NPOV (which shouldn't be hard), but I think it's just poor writing to keep reinforcing the point over and over by stressing that everything it doesn't do is only a restriction "out of the box". It makes the article clunky to read. -- Atama^chat 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, regarding Crystal Ball, I didn't, nor do I intend to, talk about what I wish it could one day do. As for writing quality of how much to say about out-of-the-box and where & how to say it...well, I'll introduce facts I think are worthy to mention, and if they're seen as worthy facts but would be better organized differently...feel free to re-edit! I may not have a good idea on how to write it, but in general I'd agree, it's probably better to lump together in specific spots all the things it DOESN'T do (out of box), and then lump together in other spots mentions that it CAN do those things (if you hack it). I'm guessing that would be easier to read that way.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My last word on this matter. You can mention jailbreaking for historical purposes, but you just can't tell people HOW to do it, as some editors have attempted to do in the past. You can point people to places so they can learn how to do it by use of the external links section. But, you just can't assume jailbreaking is a regular thing to do to the device throughout the article, as I indicated earlier because that's what you tried to pull with the out-of-the-box blurb. The other articles are consistent with what I've said - they do mention CPU overclocking and such, but they don't go into details on how to do it. And, when they discuss things like Microsoft Windows XP, they don't write the entire article assuming the person hacked it (ex: "Installing service pack 3 might break your WGA hack" or "only works on a Windows XP installation that is in factory condition" shouldn't have to be mentioned.) If you guys really want to out-do all the other web sites and start getting into jailbreaking and hacking in detail, I suggest creating a new article on the Wikibooks site and pour your technical guts out there. Groink (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, this can be your last word, if you like. But it's not the final word. This is a community based on consensus. You seem to be assuming a LOT of things about me based on nothing. Where did I ever imply I wanted to pour out details on how to jailbreak, unlock, etc? I don't even know how, in fact, I just know there's a lot of people doing it. And you use language like "what you tried to pull". Excuse me? What was I trying to "pull"? I thought I was making a worthwhile clarification of what the iPhone can and cannot CURRENTLY do (it CAN currently record video...just not out of the box). Do you assume some kind of bad faith on my part? Do you think I have some nefarious hidden agenda and this was the first step in my master plan? Do I have some campaign I'm not aware of to misinform people about out-of-the-box vs not? I certainly did not assume that we can blithely talk about non-out-of-the-box function without being clear. And I was clear. I very carefully said that video and other features were not out-of-the-box abilities.

-- As for discussing hacks throughout the article...I went to where I thought statements should be clarified, and I clarified them. Should it be organized differently? Maybe. Maybe I have no better ideas on how to organize it. Maybe I'm too lazy. Maybe I don't want to re-org the article just to have people jump all over me & undo all my work. Whatever. If a fact is worthy to include, then it's worthy, even if it would be "better" to organize differently. And "better" itself is a debatable term. Not everyone thinks the same way about article organization. If you don't like statements about hacks peppered in the article, you are free to IMPROVE the article by writing it up differently, consolidating that info, etc. But it's not ok to unilaterally decide that certain topics can never be mentioned, or that they cannot be entered at all if you don't like the organization of how they're entered. I will put what I think is appropriate, where I think it's appropriate. If you'd like to IMPROVE and change that (not merely delete because you dislike it), go right ahead. If I or anyone don't like your edits, we'll speak up (though I suspect I won't mind at all).

-- Or if you'd like to challenge the worthiness of including some fact, go right ahead and start a discussion about it. If you think hacked-video-recording is too trivial to mention, start a discussion. But do not delete the fact ONLY because you don't like WHERE it was placed in the article, or ONLY because you think hacks categorically are wrong to mention. A lot of people hack...their iPhones, their PS/2, their CPU, their car, etc. We're not talking about a topic that only 2-3 people worldwide are into.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

I apologize if this is considered irrelevant, but is it at all worth mentioning Blendtec grinding an iPhone to mere dust and selling its remains on ebay? And have their been any viruses of any kind developed for the iPhone, and I do the support the idea that there should be a stronger balance of view on the article. If the author's not inclined to add criticisms to his article, allow someone to insert valid, rational, verifiable counterpoints. That's the wiki in Wikipedia, isn't it?

-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Blendtec - No. This is just self-promotion of a company or product. So someone is able to grind an iPhone to powder.
• Viruses - none so far.
• Wiki - Actually, wiki just means you can develop content on-the-fly. As for criticism, there's a lot of it in this article already. Did you even read it? Wikipedia does not recommend creating a section just for criticism. Instead, they recommend integrating these points into the existing sections, and let the content in the sections maintain the balance. But remember that many criticism points usually end up being POV. And the source that's making the criticism should be credible as well. Groink (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first trojan is out in the wild,[2] but the current one only infects people that modify the security of their phone so they can install third party apps. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a Trojan, not a virus. There's a huge difference, you have to install this program yourself to get it, it looks like you can't be "infected" by it. -- Atama^chat 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which would be why I said it was a trojan and did not say that it was a virus. Heck, I even linked to the article. As far as the use of infect... Whether one downloads it on one's own accord or has it inflicted upon your computer, the terminology is the same. The kid said it was a patch in preparation for 1.1.3, but instead it replaced files in the \bin with files that displayed the word "shoe" on the screen. Not exactly the most malicious of things a trojan can do, but it certainly is an "infection". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Trojan War? Someone had to open the door and bring the bridge down in order for the Trojan horse to come across. And once inside, all hell broke loose! That's the root meaning of the word trojan when used in technology. And Atama is correct: a trojan is not an infection. Even though a person unknowingly lets a program into his system, it doesn't "infect" the system. Like the Trojan war, it just "takes over" the system without having to feed off of any resource or grow/multiply in numbers with time. Whereas a the root meaning of a virus is that the virus integrates itself into the system. That's what an infection is - it increases in strength and multiplies as it feeds off the resources of the system, and eventually destroys the system. Groink (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

YouTube video conversion

The article states that YouTube was going to have all of their videos converted to an iPhone-compatible format by the third quarter of 2007. Well the third quarter has come and gone so does anyone know if YouTube has indeed finished their conversion of their videos or is it still an ongoing process? Also, the wording in this article needs to be carefully reviewed because there are many proposed "possibilities" and "potential future features" that may be introduced or may have already been introduced; care should be taken to make sure that the article remains up-to-date as much and as quickly as possible. Rajrajmarley (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may have already done it. It's just that they didn't announce it. Also, that statement you read is un-cited, so it could very well be original research on the part of the editor who wrote it. Unless the statement is cited, don't trust it! Since you're a registered user, you can do the research and make the additions/edits here. As for the wording, I talked about that a few days ago in this very talk page. And I agree with you 100-percent - you CANNOT be using words that may lead to someone believing that although a feature is not available today, it will be available tomorrow. Groink (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ iPhone Category

A solution for the jailbreak links problem might be to simply add a link to the iPhone category on DMOZ, which is pretty complete.

http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Systems/Handhelds/Smartphones/iPhone/

The DMOZ category has a link to the wikipedia iPhone article.

~kara

204.210.204.190 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Wikipedia is not Google. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll email that editor and ask him to remove the link to the wikipedia article then. Jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.204.190 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you feel is necessary. Regardless, go read WP:EL (and for that matter WP:No personal attacks). Let me summarize, a few directly related links is OK -- hence the link to Apple's site and their few providers. Links to other sites that simply aggregate information is not. This DMOZ page is exactly that. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually DMOZ is okay, there's even a template for adding DMOZ links on the WP:EL page, I guess you missed that. -- Atama^chat 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact it is always preferred to have the official link in the article, plus a DMOZ link to prevent link abusing in subjects that have a number of fans (like games, Apple and Web 2.0). Personally, I like the article having only links to official sites, but if someone wants to add a DMOZ link because he found it useful, I don't see it as harmful. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New iPhone version

Does anyone know the official month of the year the Version 2 iPhone will be released? The article has yet to be updated as it still refers to the new release as 2008. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apple is known to keep a tight lid on things. Even if a rumor site announced the date, we can't post it on Wikipedia because the source would lack credibility, and that Wikipedia does not allow rumors to go into articles. Groink (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

32gb version

As of february 5, there is now a 32gb version available--Sean7021 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF???? You posted this on the wrong article. The iPhone is only available in 8 and 16GB. Groink (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But I love to see one. -- Taku (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He means the iPod touch. The iPhone only has 16GB. :P --DeathShot39 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

4.8 oz (135 g) OR 135 g (4.8 oz)

grams are more official, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.60.243 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that they're generally used by more of the world than the other. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The two largest groups of English speaking people on Earth are the United States and United Kingdom. Seeing this is the English Wikipedia, the English units should be used seeing the majority of English-native speakers use it. Also, the iPhone (and all other Apple products) is an American-developed product, and all the weights and measurements given by Apple are English units, with the metric units usually given in parenthesis. If this was the Japanese Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, I'd expect the opposite. Groink (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter a damn as long as they are both there. not really worth arguing over. Towel401 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

More people in the world use Metric; most of the Commonwealth uses Metric as opposed to Imperial except for the US. JimpsEd (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Towel401 hit the nail on the head. As long as both measurement are given, it's not really a problem worth arguing over. Rajrajmarley (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

3GS speed before being underclocked

I'm a little curious of the 833MHz clock speed based on these references supplied below:

3GS: Samsung S5PC100 ARM Cortex-A8
833 MHz underclocked to 600 MHz
PowerVR SGX GPU
http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3579&p=2
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/06/t-mobile-accidentally-posts-secret-iphone-3g-s-specs/

Pardthemonster (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see now that there is talk similar above. Is there any reliable source showing that this 833MHz is valid? I remember this being on the iPhone page for a while now? I think if there is no source now that shows it is valid, then it should be removed. Pardthemonster (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a reliable source, citing Samsung itself which states that the chip "operates up to 833MHz". I've replaced the Wired reference (which didn't add anything the Anandtech reference doesn't already add) with that one in the article. -- Atama頭 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Pardthemonster (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but since when is AppleInsider considered a reliable source?

How do we know that the chip in the iPhone is actually identical to the one that Samsumg advertise? Other companies make special variants of their chips just for Apple, the Samsung chip in the iPhone could a variant of the one that they offer widely. How do we know that the chips in the iPhone are actually capable of running at "up to 833MHz"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple sources saying that the chip is a Samsung S5PC100. We have Samsung describing the capabilities of that specific chip. Here is Samsung again describing its capabilities, which again repeats the 833MHz clock speed. We know that Apple has downclocked its previous iPhone models (620MHz underclocked to 412 MHz). You are countering sourced information with speculation. -- Atama頭 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying is we don't have a single source that conclusively says the iPhone could run at 833 but is under-clocked? We are taking information from one source, and information from another source, sticking them together and drawing a conclusion about the iPhone processor? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wired says that it's underclocked as well. If you consider that a more reliable source (I do) I'll just replace the current one. -- Atama頭 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it. Thanks for pushing me to get off my rear and find that source, I admit that a rumor site like AppleInsider isn't something to rely upon. -- Atama頭 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)