Talk:iPod/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Genericized trademark

Could the term iPod be used to refer to all forms of current-age MP3 players?

Keaton 9:27pm est 9/1/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaton (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no. It isn't even nearly as close as things like kleenex or xerox machines. An MP3 player is referred to as such - an MP3 player. If someone says he has an iPod, it should be taken for granted that he does in fact have a model of iPod produced by Apple Computer. Also, other types of devices within the Apple line, such as the iPhone, is not considered to be an iPod, even though the device has all the functionality of an iPod (playing MP3s and AAC files, interfacing with iTunes, etc.) Groink 03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, some may say it's the opposite. For example, some people don't even realize that an iPod is actually an MP3 player. 67.41.164.160 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Heres my take on it. Lets use cars as an example. You got Ford, Chevy, Honda, Toyota (4 random car companies). Would it be appropiate to call the Toyota a Ford? The Chevy a Ford? A Honda a Chevy? No, it wouldn't. Therefore, you should only call a Ford a Ford, etc. And in this case, the iPod should only be called an iPod, a Zune should only be called a Zune, etc. AquaStreak 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The word iPod is not equivalent to MP3 player, as the previous posters said. A Chevy is a Chevy, and a Ford is a Ford. However, arguably, the term photoshopping is slowly becoming slang for "editting." ex: "That picture is obviously photoshopped." This is still wrong, seeing as Photoshop is a product, thus the usage is incorrect. (Adobe issued a statement about this, because it was almost like product name infringrement or something.. Anyways, this discussion has been driven into the ground. iPod is still iPod, and does not mean MP3 player. Goldy496 09:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP; the term 'iPod' has come practically synonymous with MP3 player whether you like it or not. Whether such a statement correct or not is not the issue: not all 'vacuum cleaners' share a similarity to 'Hoovers' but are still referred as such. Many a time have other-branded or generic MP3 players been casually referred to as iPods, which constitutes it as a genericised trademark. This kind of thing should go in the 'impact' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.143.103 (talk • contribs) 3:03, December 25, 2007

I have to disagree with the above post, i own a regular MP3 player and i would consider it an insult for it to be called an Ipod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It ain't going in the article until someone comes up with a reliable source. So there is no point giving your opinions either way. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you're insulted or not, it doesn't matter. As I said, a genericised trademark isn't a case of whether it's right or not. Do you think Dyson appreciate their products being called 'Hoovers'? Or any other PA company having their products referred to as 'Tannoy'? I doubt it. But that doesn't stop it being a genericised trademark - quite the opposite, if anything. Personal feelings don't come into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.250.199 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any proof of iPod becoming a generic trademark (or at least on the verge of becoming so) you only need to look at the word 'Podcast'. It is not a name for anything else. Podcasting is just that; Podcasting. Pretty much no other word is used for it. And it's pretty obvious what is being referenced in the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.136 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you need full-on direct proof, Wikipedia itself states iPod is. Right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.136 (talk • contribs) 21:38, January 6, 2008

Firstly Wikipedia is never accepted as a reliable source. Secondly when User:GaryReggae added iPod to that list he didn't include a reliable source to back up his edit. So it isn't on the list anymore. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gen 6 released?

This can't be right, but at my local Wal-Mart, in the Ipod display case, there was a black 30GB Ipod that I could've sworn said right on the box that it was 6th Generation. I know this can't be right, because it looked just like the other Ipods but with a different picture on the box, and there's absolutely no word on a release of a new Ipod. But I'm positive about what I saw. Can anyone tell me if there's a stated release anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fersnachi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out there has been mention of a new 6th gen iPod. Stay tuned to the news on Sept 5th, I hear they will release the new line. But it is to my understanding that the new model will likely feature a touchscreen the size of the entire body, no click-wheel, a larger hard drive and a Mac OS. I'm not sure what you saw but the time corresponds with the release date (albeit a bit early). -Lt. penguin _Talk^Edits 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We can mention, and do, that there is a press conference and they are expected to release new models. We can't be sure. Nothing beyond that goes up without sources from Apple, which only time will provide.--HereToHelp 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now the conference is over, all the info is on wikipedia. /thread. -Lt. penguin _Talk^Edits 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart has incorrect info regarding the iPods. Yes, they had marked the 5.5 Gens as 6 Gens. But now that the new iPod line is out, lets ignore it. AquaStreak 10:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Although it is the exact sort of thing Wal-Mart would do.--HereToHelp 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW PHOTO

Hello, I've noticed this before and still nobody has taken action. We need to get an iPod photo that has a main screen in english,the one up now is german. If there is someone who has an image it would be appreciated you uploaded it. Thanks! --bobsmith319 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If Apple unveils a new main-line iPod, we'll be getting a new photo anyway :).--HereToHelp 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New iPods Launched

can someone update this page with the results of the apple press confrence? If not done by tonight, I can do it, but I am busy currently. The article is at www.cnbc.com/Id/20586426 . The results are a new nano with a 2.5 in screen, 24 hr battery, 4 or 8 gig @149 and 199 dollars each. New ipod model with 160 gigs, for $349 and the normal iPod renamed the iPod classic and it will be 80 gb only now for $249. Also the iPod touch which is the iphone screen but just an iPod. It also has wifi for safari, youtube, etc. 8 gb for $299, 16 for $399. Also a wifi music store. Sorry I can't edit now, but I just found out at the apple store and its hard to edit on their iPhones.. 17.255.241.150 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC) not signed in hairchrm.

Hah! I should have just used a computer. So I'm renaming this "New iPods launched." I'll get to this when I get home. We will need to redo all the charts. Sorry, I still haven't signed in because it is a public computer. 17.255.241.150 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (User:Hairchrm)

Classic/Touch

I've noticed in the "models" table that the iPod touch has been given its own section as the first generation of a new line. But the iPod classic, on the other hand, has gone back and forth from being the sixth generation of the standard iPod and the first generatin of its own line. Is it safe to assume that the way it's set up now is correct? That is, the iPod touch is a new "brand" and the classic is the 6G iPod? Just for the record, I've also seen people calling the iPod touch the 6G iPod. I just think it should be cleared up. Pele Merengue 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

as per apple's site, touch is its own line and the classic is 6G. Furthermore I think that in the table of all the models under the notes for the 6G iPod it should be mentioned that it does not come in white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.226.61 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you watch Job's keynote speech announcing the iPod changes, he says they're naming the iPod "classic" not only to differentiate it from the touch variety but also to give it a final, definitive name and not "5G/6G" etc. I think the name of the article should be changed to iPod classic, with iPod as a redirect page. I apologize, I misunderstood the purpose of this article and now understand it refers to the iPod line of products and not juts the flagship model. Thanks, RAmen, Demosthenes 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think wii need moar newz to tell the difference between the 6G and the touch one. Wikifan21century 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The iPod classic should definitely be merged back into this page; the iPod spinoffs, on the other hand, should prolly stay where they are. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge back into iPod. iPod Classic is basically the same thing as the last iPod. Also if you go to Apple's website they now show each line of iPods: iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPhone. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

HOWEVER, the iPod spinoff articles go into detail about the spin-off line. The main iPod article doesn't go into any details about the classic line. For such detail to be put into an article about the iPod family/brand in general is cumbersome and inappropriate. THEREFORE, the iPod classic page should be expanded to accomondate the iPod classic and the classic iPods. Butterfly0fdoom 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

in that case there should be one article for ipods generation 1-5 + classic (in witch they are all retroactively referred to as classic?) and one for the ipod line of products in general. The 'classic' line of design of ipods is no less worthy of its own page than the 'nano', 'mini', shuffle or 'touch'. In this scenario, the photo and video will also have to be merged into the 'classic' page. For the record I think it should be expanded so that all models have their own articles. If they are merged, it will be unfeasible to have the full technical details and release dates for each individual model, which, in my opinion, is wikipedia worthy information.--80.86.74.135 01:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Who merged? we didn't agree on anything...--80.86.74.135 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So why does the 5G have its own article? 67.41.164.160 02:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, links referring to "iPod Classic" need to be fixed then, as well as there is no picture for the 4G iPod. (Which is the one I have... :D LN3000 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(So take a picture!! this was the best 4G picture I could find. A better one would be very useful.) Paul^C/_T+ 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the iPod touch should be classified as the 7th generation. It's totally different from the 3g nano and iPod classic which should be classified as in the 6th generation. No, the ipod classic should stay on it's own page, theres pages for the 4G, 5G so why shouldn't the classic get one. Ipodman 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the first generation of a new line. by your logic, the classic is still first generation, minis were second, and nanos third. If anything, the touch is an alternate version of the iphone, so it could be called iphone 1.1 or something, but i think it's best to keep it as 1st generation 'ipod touch'--80.86.74.137 14:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?

Who redirected iPod classic to this article? We haven't reached any consensus at all. Here's my argument for not redirecting: the iPod classic is basically a continuation of, well, the classic iPod, or the 6th Generation if you will. So why can the 5G have it's own article but not the 6G? The iPod classic is its own seperate model; this article covers all the models. 67.41.164.160 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proposal: change the iPod (5G) article to "iPod classic" and have that page discuss the main iPod line and the classic (which is the continuation of the main iPod line anyway). But to do that, we need to get "iPod classic" to stop re-directing to the main iPod article. And I don't know how to do that. But the classic article shouldn't have been deleted/merged, the 5G one should have. Butterfly0fdoom 08:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I got the classic page resurrected. That page should NOT at any rate be mereged with the main iPod article. This article is about the iPod brand and family/line, not the iPod product. The iPod (5G) page should be modified to accomondate the pre-"classic"-suffix classic iPods (or it should be merged with the iPod classic article). But for now do NOT DO ANYTHING TO THE 5G OR CLASSIC PAGES.Butterfly0fdoom 08:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I support putting g1-g5, photo and classic all in one article. I also think classic should be put as 6g in the chart with classic as a subtitle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did the chart thing already. Butterfly0fdoom 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I put this in the talk page for the classic article, but I think it's relevant here as well

As I see it, we have two choices for keeping the ipod articles consistent. In both choices there is one general article for all types of ipods. In the first choice, there is one article for classic (including "all iPods with the traditional 'large' HD-based form factor and interface"), one for minis one for nanos, one for shuffels and one for touch. The second choice is one article for each generation/model (although updates, such as 5.5g, would be included in the 5g article). These aticles would incude full technical details, release dates, known common bugs or defects, details on how well they sold, and other relevant details. I prefer the second choice, but I sense that most people want to scale it down as much as possible.--80.86.74.137 14:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the former idea. To have one page for ever generation of every iPod is overwhelmingly excessive. Butterfly0fdoom 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Butterfly0fdoom. I also think the "iPod classic" covers all generations of the original (AKA classic) iPod. From the original 5GB 1G iPod all the way up to the 160GB "classic" iPod. -- MacAddct1984 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So expanding on that, I think the 5G iPod article should be deleted or merged into the iPod classic article, and the iPod classic article expanded to accomondate the "classic" iPod. Butterfly0fdoom 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wi-fi

somone please and go ahead and add wi-fi B and G are both supported. Just watching Steeve :http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/sep/s83522y/63827621b_1_ip_e_ref.mov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.137.24 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An addition to the "Models" chart

I was just wondering about adding the kind of drive the particular model has, whether it is flash or hard drive based. I thought I'd reach out for a consensus before adding yet another column to an already lovely chart. For models that have always had a specific drive, a !rowspan could be used, for fear of getting a bit repetitive. -- MacAddct1984 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i say go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

4G Click Wheel iPod

This whole chart is not uniform, what's with the photo for the 4th Gen iPod, who was stupid to pick that one, can we get one that shows only the iPod. And if the iPod "classic" is the 6th gen iPod, why is it so special it deserves a separation border. iPod photo should get it too then. Be consistant. Pumapayam 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the photo for the 4th Gen iPod. It was the only one I could (easily) find that was the monochrome 4th gen iPod. If you looked at the article history you would see my edit summary explained that the image needed to be cropped or a new one should be added. The image up currently is better than a redlink for an image which was what was there and it is better than nothing. Please, by all means, crop the image so it only includes the iPod or use the next image in the flickr photo stream which shows the iPod powered on. However, that image needs to be rotated in addition to being cropped. I agree about the iPod classic not needing a separate border, but then we would need to rename the whole line to iPod classic (which wouldn't be a bad idea actually...). In fact, I'm going to do just that. Paul^C/_T+ 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get a photo of the unit actually being on, as the 4G "Click Wheel" and the 4G photo iPods look almost identical, except for the fact that the "click wheel" screen is black & gray while the "photo" is color. There is ipod_4g.jpg from Apple-History, however Apple owns the rights and while it is advertisement/promotional, there should be more free-to-use options available. -- MacAddct1984 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is one: http://flickr.com/photos/newslighter/397895/in/photostream/ although it needs to be cropped and rotated. Paul^C/_T+ 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A change to the "Models" chart

Someone should change iPod classic on the chart to just iPod, and change "sixth" to "sixth (classic)," like the 5G and the photo, since everything before the 6G wasn't known as the classic, just this newest. I'd do it myself, but seeing as the page is blocked. . .67.41.164.160 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus has been reached that all hard drive based, 1 through 6 generation iPods are now deemed as "classic", just as all generations of screen-less, flash drive based iPods are "shuffle". -- MacAddct1984 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the shuffle, that's different. It was always known as a shuffle, unlike the classic. 67.41.164.160 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

steve jobs said something like "these ipods have never had a name, they've just been ipods, so now we are naming them 'the classic'". This implies that apple is retroactively naming the entire line of the original ipod as classic. this has been discussed already.--80.86.74.135 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He also stated something like "People have been calling them 3G, 4G, 5G, but now we are calling them 'iPod classic'" AquaStreak 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod Photo

The current photo on the article does not include the iPod touch. It also includes the iPhone, which is related but not relevant. Is there a new photo available? -- Jasonwemyss 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're working on it. See Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#iPods. The ipod touch hasn't shipped yet, so it could take awhile longer.--HereToHelp 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, that didn't work out. It is bad to have Apple's fair use images, but unacceptable to use anyone else' images that aren't released under a free license.--HereToHelp 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Table broked

Yeah, the model table broke and I don't know how to fix it. 60.50.91.104 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

you break, you buy.--80.86.74.135 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod Mini

Is it just me, or does the green iPod mini seem out of place in the model table? Is there any way we can get a better picture instead of the twisted/zoomed in green one? LN3000 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that too, though it may be that way to reflect the changes from the 1st generation to 2nd (I think it was just the color on the clickwheel). IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that. It seemed pointless to me to have no picture on the second generation iPod mini or to have the standard full image, because at that distance and that small it would have looked exactly the same, and the two images (1st and 2nd generation) would have been interchangeable. The colour difference is much more noticable now and you can actually see the colour on the click wheel, which is mentioned right next to it in the description part. There is an issue with the 4th generation classic image and the 1st generation shuffle image, and possibly the first generation nano too, which is the actual player is so white that some people may not be able to tell the difference the white plastic to the white background. After running the nvidia video calibrator on mine it is hard to tell the difference, but when I change it back to the factory settings it looks fine. It's just something to consider. JayKeaton 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of transparent image

Is it possible to replace the image currently in the infobox with this transparent one? While it doesn't make much difference, I think we should rather use the better version. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one minds, I went ahead and made the switch. If anyone objects, say it here. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection again?

While the level of vandalism isn't extreme, all of it is coming from anons, and it seems to never stop! How about semi-protection again? IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Competition

Should we add a subcatagory for competitions? --Rsrikanth05 11:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With the iPod's huge market share, what would you actually consider it's 'competition'? Seriously. There's a Digital Audio Players category that shows the 'also rans'. I don't think any of the 'other' models really stands out as a #2 or #3... --Rehcsif 02:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like the Sandisk Sansa, or the Transcend Tsonic. Rsrikanth05 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this "Transcend Tsonic". Shows how much competition threat it poses. AquaStreak 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is because most iPod owners do not know about other Portable Music Players. The Transcend Tsonic is more popular than the iPod in many places. --Rsrikanth05 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In my area, the most popular players are iPod, Zune, Zen, and Sansa. AquaStreak 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And the Tsonic is the most popular in my area.--Rsrikanth05 05:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And, in an ironic twist of fate, I've never even heard of the Tsonic, despite my extremely frequent stays in Taiwan. Butterfly0fdoom 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the SanDisk Sansa, and the Creative MuVo, or Zen, and Microsoft Zune? Also why not create a section about cheap, chinese imitations? --Rsrikanth05 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant and non-constructive to an article about the iPod and inappropriate for the article. If you want to know what competes against the iPod, Amazon.com can give you that information. Butterfly0fdoom 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I already know what are the competitions for the iPod. What is so non-constructive about it? The ipod is a PMP, so are the rest of them, which I mentiond. --Rsrikanth05 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More than half of the models of the iPod are NOT PMP's, but rather simply DAP's. AquaStreak 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the iPod is just a DAP, while the T.sonic is a PMP. Anyway, it does not matter, as you people are extremely biased towards Apple. --Rsrikanth05 —Preceding comment was added at 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How are we extremely biased? Other player's info and features should be talked about in their respective pages, not on the iPod article. And some iPods are PMP's; I was simply pointing out that most weren't (1-4 gen, mini 1 and 2nd gen, shuffle) AquaStreak 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to make this semi-protected.

Someone keeps replacing the main picture with a picture of a females breast. Can we put a semi-protection on this? -Cam^T|C 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked about the semi-protection too. And it's not only what you mentioned, but general vandalism is occurring on the article on a regular basis. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

do it--80.86.74.135 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP is where you'd make the request. --ElKevbo 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardware Section

I think this section should go away, and be split off into all the model articles (e.g. iPod Classic, iPod Shuffle, etc.) In fact, most of it is probably there already. I already moved a lot of classic-specific content to the iPod Classic article, as it doesn't make sense to clutter the now-generic iPod article with things that aren't general across the entire line... --Rehcsif 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can get rid of the chipsets subsecton, but keep the other two. Butterfly0fdoom 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

External Memory?

I know the iPods have a whole lotta memory - but I don't want my 4-gig card to go to waste. Does it have a place to shove a Sandisk external memory card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.152.166 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, iPods cant support extra memory.Rsrikanth05 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)