Talk:MP4 player

Keep

I think this article is useful and should be kept. I have one of these players and couldn't find much useful information in in English till I found this page.

• I revised much of the article so that it wouldn't be so derivative, and to conform more to the style of Wikipedia. I agree that the article ought to be here, regardless whether the items in question are useless, as stated below, or not. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide reference on things that people need information about, and documenting audio-video devices is within the scope of this one. --Aaron Walden 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely gonna' get flamed

I should have discussed this with some people first, but I'm probably gonna get flamed for modifying huge portions of the article, I may or may not have creased out the grammar problems, in addition, I may have caused more problems than may have fixed. Reeves 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added some tags because this article needs work anyways... Reeves 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added some MORE tags again, added "weasel words" tag 'cause I think this article uses too many opinions in the wording like: "some people..." "most of them are..." "generally they..." and etc. Sans Nom Reeves 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention... the phrase: "it can..." and another phrase: "it has the ability to..." Damn this articles so general...

Sans Nom Reeves 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Against Merge

While this article summarizes the general characteristics of all portable media players worldwide, original of fake, Chinese MP4/MTV Player focuses on Chinese-made-and-designed players; many are pirated or imitations of popular brands. A "no brainer"? Go figure. Chinese MP4/MTV Player should be expanded to include information about the labour status in China, and what causes the companies there to make fakes.--Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Replying on mergee per policy. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand what MP4 players have anything to do with the labour status in China? Is there any encyclopedic relation? I think that'd be more revelant in articles about Nike, Nokia, Asus, Foxconn, etc. Ufopedia (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying on outdated topics. --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 07:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Didn't this page use to have some useful external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AresAndEnyo (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the links back in if you have some you think are just spam delete them but I think MP4 Nation at least should be kept.--AresAndEnyo 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave the MP4wiki.com link, it actually provides useful information, more so than the eBay link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.182.193 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing against the quanity of information, but Wikipedia does not reference other wikis as a source. A bit paradoxical, yes, but on the terms of reliance... --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia done it again

This article seems to of regressed from wiki editing. Like why was the rockchip section deleted?--AresAndEnyo 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One word: Notable? --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|12-9-2} 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One Subheading in that article "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" so I guess your the one causing all the trouble.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I had only reverted edits on external links, which are links to message forums (not a place of encyclopedic researchable knowledge), and are completely unrelated to "Rockchip". When I added "One word: Notable?", I was just giving my opinion on why such a section may have been deleted... And speaking of that section... I had traced this article's history, and there are no evidence, whatsoever, of me participating in the removal of a "Rockchip" section. I do not tolerate such accusations. Seeing that you added back the spam links, and after reading your comment from my talk page, I have decided not to revert it this time, for now, and see if it still stands. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|23-14-4} 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Deletion?

In the meantime, I will actually propose a nomination for this article to be deleted. For starters, the title "Chinese MP4 player", or its prior name, "Chinese MP4/MTV Player", isn't official, and had not been referenced on a notable publication. This article seems to include original research, questionable bias, and content that seems to be doing anything but providing an unbiased and accurate insight... instead, it's mainuplating and mislabelling a group of unnotable products for the sake of it. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|23-14-4} 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you came around :)

I agree that this is basically a POV fork of the PMP article, and that those aspects of the Chinese market which can be sourced can easily be discussed in a fully-merged version. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree the article offers information on a certain type of player which is quite widely recognized, it is more than noteable and combining it with the pmp article will unnecessarily clutter that article with a rediculous amount of information about one type. This article is a well valued peice of wikipedia and if people who have little knowledge of the subject or interest in actual construction would keep out of it this article would of grown to be much better, and can still. The fact this article was probably better 4 months ago then it is now. After alot of the people arguing for it's deletion have destroyed it now they feel it should be deleted cause of its low standards. Arguably these players are more widespread in the market than anything creative offer and maybe even ipod, as such they are quite notable. If people would give the article a bit more growing room than continually attacking it than it will get better. If S1 MP3 player has a page I feel this should definitely. LEAVE IT ALONE!! More importantly Have you started a nomination we should be talking on or not!--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let me address every single portion of the literary Lucifer above, no offence, I hope...

You vouched that "the article offers information on a certain type of player which is quite widely recognized", but I almost never saw them recognized by a well-documented publication or news media. Remember, the backbone of an encyclopedic article is some good ol' global notability!

Compared with many similar pages, I won't really say this article "is more than noteable", but as long as we carefully adjust, fine-tune, and remove irrelevant, biased, unverified, unecessary, and literally made-up content from this article, "combining it with the pmp article" wouldn't "clutter that article with a rediculous amount of information about..." Hold up! The Portable media player category isn't a type. It is a category of electronic devices. Chinese MP4 players are a type. A type of portable media players!

In fact, if we decide to nominate this article for deletion, (something I need more response from), the information from the PMP article is more or less enough to describe and summarize Chinese MP4 players, considering the little demand for its detail. I know there are "people who have little knowledge of the subject or interest in actual construction would keep out of it this article would of grown to be much better...", but we must salvage and interpret the fractured content within this article, and believe me, the result will be much shorter.

Now, because you said "this article was probably better 4 months ago then it is now", I went back through page history, and got this diff out, exactly 4 months ago. Now you can really compare.

And I only initiated a discussion for the deletion of this article due to the undenying fact that this article's foundation is a load of POV and original research, and that notability still stands, even in a regular encyclopedia. At least I don't "feel it should be deleted cause of its low standards", alright? And maybe you can provide a citation on how"these players are more widespread in the market than anything creative offer and maybe even ipod"...

I know there are those who "would give the article a bit more growing room", but the "growing room" has been occupied with content that hardly seems verifiable, like I've said above. And I think we've "continually attacking it", and "it will get better"? Hmm...

"If S1 MP3 player has a page I feel this should definitely. LEAVE IT ALONE!!" That article serves its purpose as a product page, while this article seems to be a compilation of ideas, speculations, and interesting but hardly citated information that is bundled in a title that is uncommonly used altogether. (Both "Chinese MP4 player" and "Chinese MP4/MTV player") And that's a good Chris Crocker impersonation, by the way. Good job.

"Have you started a nomination we should be talking on or not!" Do you want to? I need some more response from other users first.

Ultimately, the judgement of deleting or keeping an article should be in the balance of the Wikipedia community, not the interests of oneself. Therefore, I would need some more response. Thanks again! --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-14-4} 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Phew!)

Just to point out that AfD is a discussion, so it's perfectly acceptable to discuss it here first before making a formal request. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that it is acceptable to talk here but I mean I want to know if there is an AFD going down at the same time that I should be apart of.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok now a quick reply, firstly I don't see the S1 MP3 player page as that different they both have trouble sighting sources and are both about generic chinese players. I can definitley make this page amost an exact replica of that page for these players ie examples and such. While you can rip out any page in the name of neutrality and original research, I take a much more relaxed view to wikipedia, sometimes I think you need to give the benefit of the doubt as a lot of useful relevant encyclopedic articles have trouble getting fully sourced, which is the only real complaint. Your POV isn't right it's just that it appears that way cause it is hard to source, I can work on that, for the meantime when you go to a forum site on this topic and the majority of posts are about problems with the players and ebay sellers con-ing buyers it is not that unreasonable to say that there might be problems with the product in general. Sends this to the AFD and I will say keep and chances are you may well win because technically your probably in the right, but I don't feel that wikipedia should be run in a tick cross manner, and article be useful and informing to large amount of people should count for something, even though I know I long list of policies say no. A personal note to Jw21 if you keep attacking me personally I will report you to various admins and I do think that by the book is grounds for blocking, though I personally don't agree with that as well.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be a little misunderstanding here. I did not personally attack you. I just wanted to respond to your reply, point-by-point. That's why I quoted each point in italics and responded to each of them. One more reminder: S1 MP3 players are have a similar build. Sure, some of them are from China, but Nextar and Coby (American) also manufacture S1 MP3 players. Anyway, I hoped I had made my case. To all other users, do not hesitate to give your opinion, other than the 3 already in discussion. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-14-4} 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why "MP4 CHINESE players"???

This article is a shame. Many MP4 are not Chinese, and MP4s from China fail miserably on notability (because it don't have much difference from non-Chinese ones). Note most of the article can be applied to most if not all media players, not only the Chinese ones. Also, there are also many cloned mp4 in other countries, not only China. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}.

If you had read the article, the name doesn't mean players with the MP4 video format. Most players from China which are clones or copycats tend to advertise as "MP4 players", as in "MP3+MP1=MP4", since those players usually wouldn't be compatible with the MP4 format. And because a whole lot of players are following that trend, the content in the article is notable. There's also sources and an external article included. You are free to contact the Wikipedia:Help desk for any further inquiries. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you had read my post, you would notice I am not talking anything about the MP4 format. My issue is that the article is indirectly associating "China" with "cheap or cloned 'MP4' players". However, there are many original digital players from China and many cloned digital players from other countries. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{06:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}.

-Jw21: Sorry but i think you are very biased on this topic, many of the cheap players from China are clones, but there are even more that are not, just because the person who choose to put images for this article used a nano clone doesn't mean that all MP4 players are clones. You should also realize that the term 'MP4 Players' is not simply an advertisement, in China these players are always referred to MP4 Players, it is hardly a advertising gimmick but is an actual reference to hand held video players - Just because you or where you live does not see it this way does not make it a gimmick or advertisement.

You should also be aware that many MP4 players that use the newer chipsets are quite capable of playing .MP4 formats and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.232.27 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sound biased or anything, but all that I said came from the article, no matter how flawed it may be. The article isn't referencing to clones, branded or not branded. The images that are used are from China and were referred/advertised as MP4 players, and they just happen to be clones. Unless you can find an image of a Chinese MP4 player which isn't a clone, that'll be fine. I've been to China and the "MP4" reference was, in the words of alley shopkeepeers, roughly translated, "It is next generation of media player machine, from MP3 to MP4!" A few of them were aware of the MP4 video format, let alone recognizing video formats. Anyway, there are sources and an external link to back this up, and of course, recent players now have the MP4 video format, as stated in the article too. If the only issue is with the misleading clone images, then upload non-clone Chinese MP4 players. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole problem. The article isn't referencing to clones: it is referencing to China clones. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{06:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}.

Well just to justify that MANY of these players can be called MP4 players as they almost all tend to play XVID format, which is a MPEG-4 standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xvid If you want references to where you can find sites or publications that refer to MP4 Players, then look in Chinese sites (zol.com.cn <- Cnets China affiliate) where they have entire sections for 'MP4 Player' or any Chinese tech publication. BTW for a person so picky on citing reliable sources you must know Chinese 'ally' shop keepers aren't exactly the best source of information, most shop keepers who sell electronics in China don't know anything about the products they sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.182.193 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Heh. I didn't even see this discussion, but it should be clear from the new article title that I've fixed it. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please delete this article

This article should be deleted, it is uninformative and the grammar is so poor that some of the sentences are almost incomprehensible. Overall it comes across like some sort of anti-Chinese propaganda article. It falls short of the standards people have come to expect froma resource like Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.82.51 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is either extremely outdated, or just some anti-Chinese propaganda crap

"A majority of these players do not support the MPEG-4 video format, and are limited to proprietary formats like AMV and MTV,[1] or require conversion to those particular formats."

when I read the above sentence, I thought I was reading an article from 2004, and four years is a long long time for consumer electronics. And while I agree the term MP4 is notable (at least in China), I don't understand why none of the major (and thus very notable) MP4 brands like Aigo, Newsmy, Meizu, OPPO, etc. is mentioned, whose products come with good manuals and customer service (better than Nokia's, if we are to trust certain independent customer surveys), but some weird "i-Nickel" got a highlight. It's like talking about Chinese mobile phones but ignoring Lenovo, Amoi, Coolpad, but focusing on something called NOK1a.

If no one else gonna do it, I think I'll rewrite this whole article and make it into something that's at least readable. Ufopedia (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate any contributions to this encyclopedia. I don't have the time now to read through your rant or assist you in any potential edits, so I'll just invite you to do your business first, have a little fun, remember to add verifiable sources, and I'll check it next day. Until then, make some magic brotha! --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MAGIC! I have rewritten the summary part, and replaced the pictures, to make this article actually related to the encyclopedic info regarding MP4 players instead of some senseless China-bashing. I'll add a rough "Origin and Timeline of MP4 players in China" section tomorrow, to make it look actually like an encyclopedia article.

BTW, wow, you surely are a BUSY person, you don't even have the time to read through a so-called "rant" of a grand total of six lines, LOL Ufopedia (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an article about Chinese MP4 players is by definition anti-Chinese propaganda. What happened is that some very entrepreneurial producers in Guandong, China initially cloned Apple's iPod touch and happened to make a more useful consumer electronics product with more functionality in the process. The Chinese MP4 players are often better than the Apple product, although there are the known issues of faked memory capacity and firmaware update malfunctions on some models. When Apple marketed their MP3 player MP3 players were uncommon and Apple wanted to corner the market, so while Apple called the Chinese models "clones" disparagingly, the Chinese producers also emulated the physical form of the Apple products for reasons of consumer recognition of products. Since then there have been so many MP3 players from so many producers that the idea Apple somehow owns the idea seems preposterous, and it is. So again, the Chinese "clones" ended up being innovative, superior products and injected competition into the global market for PMP. This cannot be anti-Chinese propaganda. If anything, it's pro-Chinese. Apologies if my chronology is somewhat off, I haven't been paying close attention to the development of MP3/MP4/PMP products,but I have compared Apple products to the Chinese products, and find the latter much more user-friendly, accessible and, oddly enough, repairable. They are a superior product.Hypatea (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject China

I think this article belongs to WikiProject China since it's a term most widely used, and mostly notable, in China. Ufopedia (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

MP4 player does NOT mean it's from China

"MP4 player" is what most PMPs are called by people from China, whether those PMPs are made in China, of Chinese brands, or not. In fact a lot of the most famous MP4 player brands are foreign brands, for example Apple's video-capable iPods, Creative's Zen Vision series, Archos and Thompson from France, Maxian, iriver and iAudio from Korea, etc.

"MP4 player" does not equal "Chinese MP4 player", and "Chinese MP4 player" does not equal "cheapo Chinese iPod clones manufactured by private underground factories and sold abroad by pirates"

And this is an encyclopedia. Ufopedia (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jw21 repeatedly hampers attempts to improve this article with encyclopedic info

It's encyclopedic facts that Archos Jukebox from 2002 is the first portable media player that simultaneously earned and started the "MP4 player" name, and that Newsmy ManMan A4 and iPod Touch are MP4 players.

Also the accusation of "spam links", "implied content", "misleading info" etc. are nonsense, when you go to any major sites in China like pcpop, zol, etc. those players are clearly categorized as MP4 player, no implication, nothing misleading.Ufopedia (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Convinced... For the sake of an article's quality, I apologize for being nonsensically paranoid then. :) No hard feelings, I hope. --PenaltyKillah^{Jw21NAZZYBYEBYE} 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

well, then I guess we are both for the sake of an article's quality. Since the previous state of this article is FAR from an encyclopedic one, not to even mention its quality. To me it's quite clear that it needs to be entirely re-written, and I'll do it step by step. On the other hand, I still don't understand how you consider any links I have provided here to be "spam links", or what part you consider "implied content" and "misleading info", etc. nonsense like that. I do welcome reorganization and clean-up of my wordings, since I'm no native English speaker, so naturally some of my wordings may not be appropriate in English, but the basic facts are, AFAIK, quite accurate since I live in China and knows fully well what "MP4 player" means here. And I hope you can read through the sources I have provided carefully before labeling them "spam links", "implied content", "misleading info", etc.

Also I'm not sure about the "sinocentric" issue, since as AFAIK, the term MP4 is only most notable in China, I don't think the "MP4 = cheapo iPod clone" idea from a couple thousands people outside of China (or is this term really more notable than that outside of China?) is notable enough to change the meaning of "MP4 players" that's well-known to millions of people in China. That's why I added this to Wikiproject China, since I think this term is only really notable in China, I hardly see anyone mention this term in non-Chinese forums and sites.

On another note, knowing what "MP4 player" really means here, I do support to remove this article altogether and merge parts of it to the PMP article. But if that's not gonna happen, I'll just re-write this article gradually bit by bit when I have some free time ;) Ufopedia (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take as long as you want on it. I support the direction you want to take the article in. Next time, though, leave the personal comments on other editors out of it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Great then. if the article eventually contains too little content that is relevant and unique to its objective, then the content have to be 'merged' with Portable media player. Possibly as a subsection called 'Etymology' to cover the different namings of PMPs, not just how they call it in China, or an honourable mention at least. Right now, a summary of video formats and chipsets that are quite related to MP4 players - at least the Chinese-manufactured ones - make up the bulk of this article. But since the article has a new direction, with the name being labelled as a "marketing term", we'll see how this goes. --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I'll specify what I mean for the three terms for the edit...

• spam links - Referring to the external links at the bottom (not references/citation links, two different things.) ... most which did not conform to WP:EL. These links were added by IP users and others, and had - in one way or another - survived over time, despite attempts to clear it. Community forums and niffy troubleshooting guides do not cut it.
• implied content - Before the cold, hard proof was presented, I was afraid that the 'MP4 player' term was, once again, mislabelled... an action that was all too familiar in this article's far past. It seemed that term was more than just a marketing term, but since it just is a marketing term...
• pictures misleading to article - I thought the presence of a popular player's picture would mislead viewers to assume that this was the general article for portable media players, and before it was learnt that the Archos Jukebox Multimedia was also the first player to be coined as an MP4, besides being the first PMP too... Now that its key points are explicitly described, to avoid confusion between the two... I won't have anything to be paranoid about for this issue. --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who doubt that "MP4" comes from Archos

look at this link : http://www.mie168.com/marketing/2007-06/209707.htm

2002年，爱可视发布了全球第一款MP4播放器（又称PMP，便携式媒体播放器）。2003年9月，爱可视的便携式媒体播放器进入中国市场。也是在那个时候，张亚玲第一次叫出了“MP4”这个名字，从音频到视频，整个产业又一次面临着变革。

Ufopedia (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice niche, placing someone's user name up in lights... Now, the Chinese article stated that the Archos player is the world's first portable media player. It's primarily referenced as an "MP4" to accommodate the article's intended demographic, as the term is easier to recognize in that region. If "张亚玲" is indeed, Henri Crohas' Chinese name, or is the name of an Archos associate, it should be stated that the company invented the 'MP4' term as a marketing one. If "张亚玲" isn't part of the company, then the Jukebox Multimedia's release and its distribution in China isn't related or coherent to the article's topic. --PenaltyKillah^{Jw21NAZZYBYEBYE} 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

张亚玲 is not Henri Crohas, it's also not any user name, she is the head director of Archos Asian division, and the head director of Archos China, and the head representative of the Archos HQ in Shenzhen, China. for more info about her, refer here :

http://business.sohu.com/20060411/n242739959.shtml

Also while the first "MP4" in that paragraph I have quoted ( 2002年，爱可视发布了全球第一款MP4播放器（又称PMP，便携式媒体播放器） ) is indeed "stated that the Archos player is the world's first portable media player. It's primarily referenced as an "MP4" to accommodate the article's intended demographic", the second "MP4" in that paragraph ( 2003年9月，爱可视的便携式媒体播放器进入中国市场。也是在那个时候，张亚玲第一次叫出了“MP4”这个名字 ) clearly says that it's Zhang Yaling ( 张亚玲 ) who first invented the "MP4" term when Archos enters China market. So yup you can say the "MP4 player" term is invented by Archos. And either way, the "MP4 player" term is clearly first invented to describe the Archos Jukebox PMP, thus the Archos Jukebox PMP is the origin of the "MP4 player" term, thus very relevant and important to this encyclopedic article about "MP4 player" Ufopedia (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the MP4 format wasn't completely defined at the time the term for the player was coined, which I have always taken to mean that the player had video capabilities of some form, in line with the popular notion of the MP4 format at that period.Hypatea (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fraudulent capacity claims

Updated information on this and other (malfunctioning) mp3 players can be found here.

There is much evidence that Ebay sellers are selling many mp4 players with fraudulent capacities. If so, I think people are giving these sellers good ratings before they realize it doesn't hold as many files as they thought it would. I don't mean to imply that the faked capacity is absolutely certain or that it applies to every player/drive that claims to be 16GB or more. Maybe they are using some non-standard formatting that was screwed up when I formatted the player with Windows. But I don't think I formatted it until I couldn't copy files to it.

Standard formating is FAT32 reporting itself as FAT. Anything over 2 GB is faked.Hypatea (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what was deleted from the article

[Note, I've put an updated version of this at Wikinfo.]

Many self-published sources online claim that MP4 players and flash drives sold on eBay have a much smaller capacity than claimed. The computer connected for transfer can be tricked into reporting the fake size. Without using the proper software to format the devices, this glitch will eventually render the player unusable.

Wide consensus in self-published sources

[The following I posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (since then, it was archived):]

There are numerous self-published sources online that discuss flash drives (including mp4 players) with hacked fake capacity [1]. Various software exists for checking and correcting this. I have one such mp4 player and I could put an article in my wiki summarizing all this evidence. I'm a little unclear as to whether any of these would meet Wikipedia criteria as reliable or notable sources or "original research". According to WP:V "Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." While I've not been able to find a third-party published source for this information;

• there are an overwhelming number of self-published sources,
• many of these sources are in (apparently) open and disinterested forums where scrutiny is published also,
• it's not very difficult to test the drive once you are aware that the problem may exist, so these claims are not particularly extraordinary, controversial, or vulnerable to bias or mistake.

According to WP:V "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Would the inverse be true; that when there is wide consensus in disinterested self-published sources, that a third-party publication is not necessary? Under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources it states that "When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published." but I don't see any guideline as to how a self-published source may be used "appropriately" unless the author has previously been published by a third-party. Lumenos (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because if anyone disputes, telling them to "go read this forum" isn't acceptable. --Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for what it is worth, the seller accepted it. [Update: But when I went to buy another one, this seller and some others I didn't buy from, blocked me from purchasing. Lumenos (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)] They refunded my money without requiring I return the player. I don't see how we could expect a third-party published source to make the case any better than it was made, but you would have to see the evidence yourself. Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It also speaks to the notability of the issue. If reliable tech sources aren't picking it up, it isn't really considered that big of a deal so why are we creating content on it? --Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a good chance there is some source you would consider "reliable" among the thousands of search results, I just don't have all night to figure out which would have an acceptable publisher. This seems a rather indirect way of going about it. I mean, how do we know who the reliable publishers are if we aren't supposed to evaluate their claims? Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As for notability, if all that means is that third-party published sources refer to it, than what is your point? Are you saying it is not likely to be valuable to the readers of Wikipedia? The particular model of mp4 player that I bought, is selling at nearly one per second on Ebay. They are less expensive than nearly any mp3 player I could find on bargain hunting forums or Ebay, plus they have rechargeable batteries, charger, they play video, record voice, support folders, etc. It makes a big difference if the capacity is 4GB (as was claimed) or about 512MB (like mine actually was). Having this information allowed me to make the player stable [Update: player was not really exactly "stable". The space kept decreasing when files were removed and added and Windows wasn't displaying the correct size. I used the same procedure on another one (to make it display the correct capacity) and it stopped working completely. I'm tired of researching this but here is where I put the disorganized update for now. Lumenos (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)] and get a complete refund. Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about these products, but it appears that the claims are that the products don't have as much capacity as they are supposed to or that they don't function properly. Those are controversial claims, in the sense that if someone made false claims along those lines, the manufacturer would be justified in suing the claimant. Therefore, we should only include such statements if we can find reliable sources that have made such claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I worded the section so that it is not making the claim, simply stating that many have made the claim. Would Wikipedia be liable? Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The way around committing the sin of original research is to note the players report they are using the FAT file system on the flash memory to the operating system, and that the maximum capacity for any FAT drive is 2 MB (or something like that). That way it's simply a matter of common sense, of putting 2 and 2 together to make 4.Hypatea (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

E-book capabilities

I am missing information about these players' capability of displaying e-books. I bought a model under the Concorde label in Hungary for €50 with 2 GB Flash memory, a T-Flash slot and full USB support with no software needed. I use it every day as my "book at bedtime" and for the bus, train and park benches for plain texts downloaded from Project Gutenberg etc. True, it never seems to want to play any of the videos I keep trying (seems to only take 128 kbps), but its book function has been a real revolution for me, being an ex-pat in a far away country with far too many books already, and in no need of much else in the way of entertainment. If someone could add a section on this, it might curry--or chopsuey--a little more love for the concept. The manual in Hungarian only is an absolute disaster, even, if not especially, for fluent speakers of that language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.109.156 (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe all of the s1 Actions chipset ActOS players have at least the possibility of running the text reader, jpg display and telephone book programs. The text reader will display simple .txt files loaded from PC, the .jpg viewer will resize to screen and the telephone book application has a special format. Some players come with documentation and the small CD, and it's usually a case of one-size-fits-all, because the documentation and utility applications are almost never customized for different models, they are just copied and repackaged. The applications for the consumer include a program for converting .avi to the right scale .avm to play videos, and an .lrc editor. The latter is a format for a text file with the exact name of the target MP3 minus the MP3 extension plus the .LRC extension that types the lyrics of a song to screen as the song plays. Another feature on some models is the FM radio receiver with switches for the Japanese consumer broadcast band. Some models also have a built-in speaker as well as microphone, so no headphones are required. It seems like these features should be mentioned in the article because they run across different models. There are also somewhat sophisticated choices for voice recording, but the .WAV format used is not the generally defined WAV format and needs converting to use on a PC. Some of the manuals ARE available on-line (as are the bundle of utility applications), so maybe some information from the manuals should be included in the article...Hypatea (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Junk Jungle (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

taking advices

how to write program to make my mp4 player just I like the way it open and add other effect with it display. I also want to know ,it possible to open it by voice.If it possible ,how I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsan (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum about MP4 players. We only discuss the article here. I don't know a good place to ask this question. You can try on http://stackoverflow.com/, but I'm not sure it's the best place. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MP4 player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311000040/http://www.electronics.ca/reports/multimedia/mic_mp4chips_design.html to http://www.electronics.ca/reports/multimedia/mic_mp4chips_design.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)