Talk:iPhone

Edit request from Johnmackay13, 10 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload

"Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi or a wide area GSM or EDGE network, both second-generation (2G) wireless data standards. The iPhone 3G introduced support for third-generation UMTS and HSDPA 3.6,[118] but not HSUPA networks, and only the iPhone 3GS supports HSDPA 7.2.[119] AT&T introduced 3G in July 2004,[120] but as late as 2007 Steve Jobs stated that it was still not widespread enough in the US, and the chipsets not energy efficient enough, to be included in the iPhone.[22][121] Support for 802.1X, an authentication system commonly used by university and corporate Wi-Fi networks, was added in the 2.0 version update.[122]" (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone) should now read:

Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi, a wide area GSM or EDGE network, which are second-generation (2G) wireless data standards, or a HSDPA or UMTS third-generation (3G) network.. The iPhone 3G introduced support for third-generation UMTS and HSDPA 3.6,[118] and the iPhone 4 introduced support for HSUPA networks. Both the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 support HSDPA 7.2.[119] AT&T introduced 3G in July 2004,[120] but as late as 2007 Steve Jobs stated that it was still not widespread enough in the US, and the chipsets not energy efficient enough, to be included in the iPhone.[22][121] Support for 802.1X, an authentication system commonly used by university and corporate Wi-Fi networks, was added in the 2.0 version update.[122]

edit request

Under heading #2 Hardware, sub heading Screen Input, the sentence which reads, "Directly above the volume controls is a silence switch that mutes all sound when engaged." should read, "Directly above the volume controls is a silence switch that mutes all sound when engaged, except for any alarms set using the phones built in alarm system." or something to that effect.Bolt 45 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't mute all sound. It only mutes some sounds. I've changed the text to show that, rather than try to explain all the sounds that aren't muted. I know that there are sounds other than alarms that make noise when the phone is muted, but I can't remember what they are. And it doesn't matter because we don't need to get into that much details, I think "most sounds" is descriptive enough. -- Atama頭 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Generations"

Each of the different iPhone pages has a generation listed. The Original is 1G, 3G is 2G, but the 3GS is listed as 3. If the iPhone 4S is listed as 4.5, isn't the 3GS just as much a 2.5 generation? The 3GS offered nothing more than a few bumped specs, just like the 4S. Anybody else think that the 4 should get bumped down to the 3rd generation? DanielDPeterson (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be changed. Wikimann1234 10/11/11

Nope, each release is a new generation. each is different and unique.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the statement - "In 2011 the iPhone 4 was voted the Best Mobile Phone On Earth". This is highly misleading, as there were only 33 votes cast for this device. As the size of this poll is ridiculously small, it should not be sited in this article. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.210.35 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

historical perspective

This site is used by many lazy journalists- most of whom seem to believe that Apple invented the "smart phone"-it would be useful to have a historical perspective, perhaps suggesting that other handsets such as the HTC Athena, released months earlier was/were technically superior. I appreciate that this is not an open forum but following the death of Jobs the press are rewriting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.183.42 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well we're not responsible for that. This is an article about the iPhone, and we can't burden it with disclaimers about tangential topics to help guide journalists or others who are foolish enough to rely solely on this article for research. Plus, what makes you think a journalist wouldn't just ignore that anyway? They're most likely going to cherry-pick this article for facts that support whatever story they're intending to write so it might not do any good anyway. This article is bloated enough without adding yet more stuff of only limited relevance. -- Atama頭 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

About the pictures

Something I've never understood. We deliberately blank out the image of the operating system in images like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iphone_4G-3_black_screen.png because Apple own the design of the operating system. How is it okay to show the external casing of the iPhone? Don't Apple own that too? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:IPhone 4 box.JPG

It is OK to show the external casing (or in reality a picture of the iPhone itself). However: have a look at the picture to the right (shamelessly copied from the article). It shows a photo of the iPhone 4 on the box lid, the copyright of which is most likely owned by Apple. The uploader claims that de minimis applies to this image, but that is clearly not the case as that image is deliberately included and there is no way that the image can be incidental to the subject of the photograph. (Refered to copyright violation adjudication) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That didn't really answer my question. Why is it okay to show the external case but not the software? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The partial screenshot is incidental to the entire image, that is, the entire contents of the box. If it really bothers you, there's another version. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that you do not fully understand this 'de minimis' business. Unfortunately, the image on the box lid does not qualify for de minimis because it most certainly is not incidental to the purpose of the picture. The picture is of an iphone box. The copyright picture included is of an iphone and most likely the copyright of the Apple Computer Company. Further, de minimis requires that the copyright image is not only incidental (i.e. nothing to do with the subject of the image) but not deliberately included in the picture. As a further test, it is a requirement that the copyright subimage could have been any sub image without affecting the purpose of the whole image. The image in question clearly fails the latter two tests. If a further demonstration is required, I note that a similar box photo of the iPhone3 (uploaded by your good self) was deleted precisely because the box image did not qualify for de minimis (not nominated for deletion by me, I might add).

I note that a cropped version of the image has now been added to the article, but unfortunately that will not save it because the stored image still has the copyright image contained within it. The only lawful way out is to upload a new image that does not include the copyright image and substitute that in the article. I know that this copyright lark gets a bit silly at times. For example: I could upload a box image where I have substituted a picture on the box lid that I personally took. Even if the image is exactly the same, the copyright would be mine and not Apple's (though Apple may try and claim that the angle of shot was their artistic copyright - though they would be unlikely to be successful as that is far too obvious). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This has always been a bone of contention. The software copyright owners try to claim that images generated by the software are their copyright and no one may reproduce them. However, I believe that this has not been fully tested in a court of law, so it remains an opinion. However, as always, I could be wrong. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine, but the least you could have done would be to replace the image with its free alternative rather than remove it outright. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I didn't remove it - and, AFAIK, nor could I if I had wanted to. I merely nominated it for adjudication by someone who has the power to decide these things. I note though that the image has been deleted, so that someone would seem to agree with me. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:IPhone 4 box.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IPhone 4 box.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

edit request, drivel and spam

"The iPhone has garnered positive reviews from critics like David Pogue[26] and Walter Mossberg.[27][28] The iPhone attracts users of all ages,[18] and, besides consumer use, the iPhone has also been adopted for business purposes.[29]"

What is the point of this statement? Someone gave it a postive review and with regard to the second part- Surely the above applies to virtually every product- shoes are used by all ages and both for business and leisure.

iphone has been consistently recognised as one of the best phones on earth.[33]

Erm the link shows that 34 people have voted for the iPhone 4- hardly scientific and just a lame excuse to link to an amazon affiliate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.190.128 (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

fMRI

Martin Lindstrom's editorial in The New York Times has some interesting tidbits about marketing tests he ran on consumers using the iPhone, finding users experiencing synesthesia (hearing and seeing the device in the audio and visual cortex), and feeling love and compassion for their iPhone as if it were a family member. Lindstrom concludes, "the subjects didn’t demonstrate the classic brain-based signs of addiction. Instead, they loved their iPhones."[1] By itself, this doesn't seem like enough to add, but if there are other sources supporting these conclusions, it would make for interesting content. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine is like the long lost brother I never had. (Actually I have two brothers).--JOJ ^Hutton 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

When people are literally "loving" their iPhones, we are seeing, in reality, the embryonic stage of the "Man-Computer Symbiosis" of J. C. R. Licklider occurring on the consumer level. This is quite likely the first evolutionary step of a posthuman future. Are we changing the technology or is the technology changing us? Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Games

Re removal of section on the effect iphone development has had on the gaming market, surely there is no dispute that the development of the iphone and the apps market for it, had a remarkable effect on gaming markets... why do you think the iphone is now a category for 'game reviews' on IGN etc. MelanieB2 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that your entire premise is based on just one game. Your analysis is basically, "I know that the iPhone is a gaming machine. Let me find something that can prove it." This is totally wrong, and Wikipedia covers this type of research in its guidelines. You cannot make a hypothesis, and then find data to prove your point. Rather, Wikipedia is based on having the fact already proven through sources. So far, I've yet to see ONE source that states clearly that the iPhone is indeed a leading device when it comes to gaming. All of your sources so far are talking about record-breaking sales and such. You're taking this information, and forming your own conclusion that if Angry Birds is selling like hot cakes, and that other platforms are now running this game as a result of the iPhone, then by all means the iPhone is a leader in the game development business. Again, you need to cite a source that states clearly - not around the bush, not wishy-washy - but states exactly that the iPhone is a gaming device. Groink (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true. Wikipedia is only an aggregate of information, we find info that has been published elsewhere by reliable sources and then replicate that information here (written in our own words of course). We can't present original ideas, even if it's derived from reliable information. If we have A and B, we can't say A+B=C, we have to find a source that does that for us. For example, if it's relevant you can say that the iPhone has a "game reviews" category on IGN (I'd argue that it's not relevant but bear with me) and then source that back to IGN. You can't declare that because there is such a category on IGN, that the iPhone clearly has had a major impact on the gaming market. Only if you found, say, a journalist or some expert making such a declaration, then you can cite that person. -- Atama頭 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request Edit

Verizon requires antenna diversity in all of their phones (iirc, the Anandtech iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S review may cover this to back me up, here), so in the HW comparison chart, the segment on celluar antenna diversity being new to the iPhone 4S (for iPhone product line) is not true. It was present on the iPhone 4 CDMA version, prior to the iPhone 4S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.139.235 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing

It is stated in this article that Apple manufactures these phones. Apple itself does not manufacture these phones. Foxconn does, in Shenzhen, China. Neither Foxconn nor China are mentioned anywhere in the article. Because of the bad press concerning the working conditions and suicides at Foxconn factories, it may be something Apple does not like to mention. Nonetheless I do find it worth noting, and factually closer to the truth than what's being stated on the current revision of the page. 62.133.118.70 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Many products are made under contract by subcontractors - but the normal meaning of "manufacture" includes the company which issued the subcontract - the subcontractor has no right to make the product for anyone else. Almost every part of an automobile is made by subcontractors - but the company which orders those parts is the automobile manufacturer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5

The redirect from iPhone 5 just has to go, because as I read in a magazine, the iPhone 5 will definitely be released this year. So please remove it. I do not know how.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove it and do what with it. Currently it redirects to this page. Do you have another option to propose?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The iPhone 5 is now expected to be released only in the summer or fall of 2012. Many think that the release date will be in fall as the summer release date is usually reserved for the iPad. Hence, the iPhone 5 might be released only after the release of the iPad 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iphone5maniac (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quarters confused in sales data

It seems that the image showing the sales data has the quarters confused. For example, it provides data about 37M iPhones sold in 1Q 2012, but we have just seen this number reported for Q4 2011. We are not even half way through Q1 2012, so how can data about it exist? This article talks about 37M iPhones sold during Q4 2011. I did not try to verify data about other quarters, but they might be shifted as well.

95.80.54.178 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is correct. The quarters referred to are the fiscal quarters, not calendar quarters. Apple's fiscal quarters are offset from the calendar. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case it's correct, but confusing. A clarification would be very appreciated, since even finance-related newspapers call it 'fourth quarter' not 'first quarter'. I find it very confusing every time. Thanks! 95.80.54.178 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Added designer

It's weird, all products usually state the designer but this didn't, anyway added designer and cite. Twobells (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your source lists the designer of the various Mac products as "Jonathan Ive and Apple design team", so we should avoid misrepresenting that - if it's not explicit that he's the sole designer, we shouldn't describe him as that. --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, sure, it's weird. Give me a break, Twobells, you've been trying to push this for a long time. It's pretty dishonest of you to pretend to be a new editor showing up to this page for the first time and noticing that info is "missing". As has been said multiple times, we don't need to add Ives to every product he ever helped Apple with. And he's already mentioned on the iPhone history page, in the lead no less, he does not belong in the first sentence of this article. -- Atama頭 18:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, falsely labeling your edit as a revert of "vandalism" is disruptive. Don't make such accusations flippantly, especially when you know they're untrue. -- Atama頭 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem unreasonable to mention the designer in the article somewhere, but clumsily jamming five quick words into the lead to make "smartphones designed by Jonathon Ive and marketed by Apple Inc" is a very unclear way to explain his role. (It can be read as implying that he designed a product independently and handed it over to Apple, when he was actually employed throughout as a senior vice president.) --McGeddon (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And we've been over this before. I don't mind a mention later in the article, it seems that the History and Availability section would be appropriate. I'd say the hardware section would be appropriate, because he was involved in designing the appearance of the device as a whole, but that section generally talks about features not design. Given the history of this discussion, though, I don't have a lot of hope for a compromise here. :( -- Atama頭 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, for anyone reading (including Twobells) I'm most definitely involved here so anything I say or do is as an editor, not an administrator. I'm not especially active at this article anymore but I'm still not going to be using my tools here. -- Atama頭 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)