Talk:IPod

Archives
January 2004 — January 2006 January 2006 — June 2006 June 2006 — September 2006 September 2006 — December 2006 Peer Review 1 — May 2006

{{cite}} reference template not recommended

For article size reasons, I recommend not using the {{cite}} template for the references. I think all references should just use the normal method with regular wiki syntax, which gives less text. --IE 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to fix it, nobody's stopping you.--HereToHelp 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to use {{cite}} templates? I was under the general impression that people should use the cite templates in general, especially since the inclusion of info element by element allows the templates to be updated quickly if need be. I've been converting references to the cite format since it's on the to-do list. Nihiltres 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the {{cite}} templates, but the problem is that this article is still a little too long, in my opinion. I often see the article size warning when editing. Using the regular wiki syntax for refs is a kind of cheap way of reducing the article size. If there's no objections, I would like to remove that task on the to-do list.--IE 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a horrible idea. I'd rather have an article that's too long than not using {{cite}}. Is there a policy somewhere, one way or the other? --Steven Fisher 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no strict policy on which style of referencing should be used. I think this article should use the Harvard format (see Harvard referencing policy) which can be done with normal wiki syntax.--IE 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no strict policy saying they must be used, but {{cite}} exists to make the references section look better organized, instead of it being a bunch of links. Using {{cite}} doesn't make the article that much longer. --Coredesat 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to retract my above statement. I think we need to continue using {{cite}} to keep the many, many references organized.--HereToHelp 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but article size is important. Effort should be made to keep the article size down. Also, the references will be organised no matter which referencing format is used - as long as one consistent format is adopted. And it will make a significant difference to article text size when the Harvard format is used, because this article has about 70 references.--IE 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to (officially, this doesn't count) suggest splitting the article sometime, into iPod (player) and iPod (brand) or some such setup (one would stay here). That would reduce the article size tremendously, without killing any cite format templates, which are very useful. Nihiltres 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The individual iPod model articles already provide a split for this article. There's nothing more that can be split from this article. Also, this article splitting idea has been discussed before: see Talk:IPod models and software and look in the archives of this talk page too. Also, the Harvard format of referencing is just as useful as the cite format templates.--IE 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to put the information in the body of the article, rather than use the <ref>info</ref> format? In my opinion, that looks cluttered, is distracting, and doesn't really work for the large amounts of internet sources used here. I also think that imbedded links ([www.apple.com]) are bad, since they are not descriptive and are larger than footnotes. However, if you only mean how the organization of the information in the footnotes themselves, and will leave the footnote system as a whole in place, I will retract my retraction.--HereToHelp 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We will still use the <ref>info</ref> format, so that the refs are listed at the bottom of the article. They won't be embedded links. Here's an example. This:

<ref> {{cite news | first = Leander | last = Kahney | title = Straight Dope on the IPod's Birth | url = http://www.wired.com/news/columns/cultofmac/0,71956-0.html | work = Wired News | date = [[2006-10-17]] | accessdate = 2006-10-23 }}</ref>

is converted into:

<ref>Kahney, Leander. [http://www.wired.com/news/columns/cultofmac/0,71956-2.html Straight Dope on the IPod's Birth], Wired News, 17 October 2006. Retrieved on 2006-10-23</ref>

The first format uses 240 characters. The 2nd format uses 176. Also, the dates within the refs shouldn't be wiki-linked. So for example, 17 October 2006 should not be written as [[17 October]] [[2006]].--IE 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to make sure. Go ahead and change it. What else needs to be fixed up before an FAC nom?HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of things that need doing before this article can be a FAC.--IE 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Like? (For instance, why do you insist that the infobox needs to be removed?)--HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, when I make suggestions for article improvement, they often receive disagreement and lack of support. I often end up spending lots of time debating the merits of my suggestions.--IE 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thrown them out there.--HereToHelp 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sometimes there's a knee-jerk reaction to constructive criticism. But hopefully people will realize that these suggestions need to be taken seriously if this article will ever be a Featured Article. This article is much improved from when I last really perused it a few years ago. It has a chance now, in my opinion, to make it to FA, whereas before, the candidacy was basically shot down. If you have suggestions, IE, please make them. People are listening. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re: dates... what makes you say this? According to this all dates should be wiki-linked (so user date preferences work correctly). The article size is important, but I think we should worry about cutting down the text of the article rather than useful formatting. I think the same argument applies for the cite templates. They allow the formatting of references to be updated across the wiki. If they are more functional and easier to use than plain wikitext, why shouldn't they be used? Paul^C/_T+ 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All dates can be wiki-linked but only in the article body, and not in the references section - where there is no need to link dates. In the refs section, the date linking provides no benefit to the user, and just creates a cluttering of blue links. Also, regarding the {{cite}} templates, this page says that "The use of citation templates is not required". This means that it's optional and can be avoided temporarily if the article is too big.--IE 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't follow what I was saying about wiki-linking full dates. It is so users' date preferences are correctly followed. As a result ANY date should be wiki-linked so this is correct. Otherwise the dates will be in different formats throughout the article. Paul^C/_T+ 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather just ignore the users' date preference requirement, simply because I don't like it when sentences looked over-linked. But if you insist on linking every date (within article body and within <ref>...</ref> statements), then I'll just leave it.--IE 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there are other high quality articles, like Global warming, which do not even use the <ref> formatting nor the {{cite}} templates. They use inline citations instead and this is considered OK, because there are a choice of formats to use.--IE 09:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So why not pick the one that works the best? This article has a lot of footnotes but virtually no book sources (those that apply to the article as a whole; I'm sure there are some in the footnotes for individual points). Most of the sources are links, and the footnotes work very well with that. However, the format of the cite template isn't going to change any time soon. There are also multiple ways to list references; all are acceptable so long as the article is internally consistent. Which it will be. (*nudge nudge*)--HereToHelp 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is that the article is too long, then the solution is to trim the content. Removing information from the citations is not a good solution. AlistairMcMillan 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Developer Program

75.208.152.191 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Information needed on how to develop content and applications or the ipod and how to make it available through the Apple vending machine, iTunes.

Agreed, this is an important topic with little information available. There are now games for the iPod but no information on how to develop them. 75.210.56.239 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about the 1984 (television commercial)

Well, the new remake with the iPod on it. But it belongs here instead, probably due to accessories. How can you attach an iPod to your clothes (specifically, at the waist) like that? No really. I mean, I never saw an iPod with a clip or something on the back in real life. --68.145.103.189 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) --Addict 2006 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Either a third party case or a 2G iPod Shuffle, which has a built in clip.--HereToHelp

My iPod 3G came with an Apple-branded clip. --Steven Fisher 22:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had mine medically inserted into my waist. It has the added bonus that I never lose it. The down side is trying to get the USB cable to reach, especially when I have to use the toilet.  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davedowd (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Recording

The article is missing any information regarding recording with iPod. It seems that the hardware of the current iPods is capable of recording up to 24 bits, 96 kHz. Is there any iPod expert willing to include the information? --pabouk 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA On Hold

This article has been put on hold due to the following WP:MOS violations.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2&nbsp;G .
• Per WP:MSH, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.

Please feel free to contact me when these problems are addressed. Tarret 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently they were, seeing the next post...but I can't find any headings that repeat the title, and 2G stands for "second generation" and is supposed to be written that way.--HereToHelp 13:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

Here are some semi-automated suggestions to bring the article to FA-class.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2&nbsp;G . Special case; this is not applicable.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • The best way to remedy this would be to combine all the sections that are only a paragraph or so. Any ideas?--HereToHelp 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Should be easy to fix; just need to find them all.--HereToHelp 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • There's only two of these, so that should be easy to fix, too.--HereToHelp 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Patent Dispute Section

"...a Hong Kong-based IP portfolio company called Pat-rights filed a suit claiming that Apple's FairPlay technology breached a patent[38] issued to inventor Ho Keung Tse. The latter case also includes the online music stores of Sony, RealNetworks, Napster, and Musicmatch as defendants" -

This case doesnt actually refer to the ipod. It was agaisnt the itunes music store regarding the FairPlay files it sells. Is this relevant to ipod? I think this section should only really contain the patent disputes about the ipod product and not general cases agaisnt apple and the itunes music store which can obviously go on the itunes store page. --Neon white 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Go move it, then.--HereToHelp 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New image at the top

I plan to replace the image at the top of this article with a different one that has all 3 models (video, nano, shuffle) on one image. I'm unable to notify the original image author, since the image is on wikimedia commons. --IE 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment...did you take that image yourself or edit it together from other images? Because I went ahead and uploaded it to the Commons (repeated "Image:" in the title, whoops), and the Wikipedia image will be subsequently be deleted in a week. Frankly, that's a great image (the fading of the iPods at the bottom like Apple does it is a very nice touch). It might be nice to get the iPod video out of the dock, and the perspective on the nano is kinda awkward, but considering Apple didn't make it, it looks great.--HereToHelp 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I took the photos of each model individually, then combined into 1 image. So it is a 100% copyright-free image. Regarding use of the dock: The video iPods can't stand up without the dock.--IE 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I found the iPod Shuffle photo particularly good; I cropped it and uploaded it [1]. --HereToHelp 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the infobox

Why would we want to lose the infobox about the ipod? see edit here. Does this warrant a revert? --Oscarthecat 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because I don't think it suits this article, and it's too vague in certain areas. It also has several errors: for example the first line said "Manufacturer: Apple". I thought Foxconn was the manufacturer? Does Apple do any manufacturing? It also says "System storage: 1GB falsh memory, but the image shows a hard-drive based ipod. I think the opening paragraph and the various sections give a better summary/explanation for the stuff that was in the infobox. --IE 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see this comment here, added by User:Kungming2. --IE 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In general I don't like infoboxes. They clutter up the article, often providing useless, redundant information. I believe that was the case here. If people insist on keeping it, then I guess we must, but personally I think the article looks better without it. For example, note that half the info in the box is already contained in the opening sentence of the article. The other info in the box is kind of vague as it combines info across all models. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Industry impact section

This article needs a section on industry impact. I've found a few references of various things. I'll put down a few notes here, just to get a few opinions/comments and perhaps some expansion, before adding to the main article. The article needs some shortening before this stuff goes in though.--IE 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards won: iPod award - Jonathan Ive - engineering excellence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4605881.stm

PCWorld - most innovative audio product of 2006 http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,123942-page,2-c,electronics/article.html

PCWorld - 100 best computer products of 2006. 36=iPod video. http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/05/31/top.100.products.announced/

4=iPod nano (it has "altered the landscape for portable audio players")

• http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125706-page,5-c,technology/article.html
• http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125706-page,2-c,technology/article.html

Industries are adjusting their products to work better (be compatible) with iPod and AAC audio format. eg. mobile phones, Zune. Micorosoft went a step further and copied the same closed DRM model used by iPod+ iTunes despite saying that people want "choice" with their Plays-For-Sure model.

Copy protection being adjusted: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040720124549.shtml

Podcasting.

Shops refer to all MP3 players as "iPods", just like how "Walkman" used to refer to all portable cassette players.

Split

There's a mention in one of the other talk sections about splitting this article for the player vs. the brand. Even disregarding the size of the article, I think this would be a good idea. There's currently an article for iPod shuffle, iPod nano and iPod mini. Dealing with the main iPod's details in an article that links to different articles for the Shuffle, Nano and Mini details is simply confusing. --Steven Fisher 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Docks

Does anyone think that we need to cover the docks that Apple makes? They were included with the main iPod line until the fifth generation. Perhaps a paragraph under "Accessories", or at least a sentence under "Connectivity". Any thoughts?--HereToHelp 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the more information the better. I am told that the docking system used applies only to Apple and that the wide range of third party docking attachments cannot be used with other makes of player (except with minijack leads in some cases). However, my Sandisk Salsa player has a docking connector that looks like the iPod one, and it would clearly make sense if this were to the same standard. Does anyone know whether this is so? I doubt that Apple have a patent on the port, as it would seem an obvious idea and therefore not patentable. Perhaps they claim copyright on the connection configuration, but the validity of such a thing would also seem dubious. The connector itself is available, and not an Apple product. Does anyone know the facts about this? The shops are full of iPod docking speakers etc, but few others, such that there is currently pressure to buy iPod rather than choose from other available (and in my opinion better) players. I find it hard to believe that other manufacturers have not adopted the Apple docking standard, as we clearly need such a standard. --Lindosland 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the dock connector is a proprietary apple standard. They developed it themselves and in order for other companies to use it they have to ask Apple for the schematic and sign a usage agreement. It is in Apple's best interest for this to remain proprietary so if people want to use iPod accessories, they need to buy an iPod. I also believe apple may receive some kind of fee for the schematic as well. This also limits the popularity of other mp3 players as 90% (made up number) of the accessories out there are exclusively for the iPod. Paul^C/_T+ 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There's two articles about the docks currently: IPod Universal Dock and dock connector. There's been a merge proposal from IPod Universal Dock since August, but no discussion, perhaps because it was never linked here! -- phoebe 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The iPod Universal Dock article has now been merged into this article by me, with extra info added by HereToHelp. Tom H 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading through the section, I've noticed some flaws in the writing ,both grammatically and style-wise. If someone wants to revise it, especially someone other than me or Tom H who haven't worked on it so much, please do so.--HereToHelp 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

The title of the article is "iPod" with a lower-case "I". It is my understanding that, by Wikipedia standard, all article titles are capitalized. If the first word is purposely to be left lower-case (as with the iPod) it should be noted that the capitalization is due to Wikipedia standards. wingman358 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not policy that all article titles are capitalized; it was a technical restriction (a.k.a. missing feature) in the software Wikipedia uses that disallowed articles beginning with lowercase letters. It's my understanding that this has been fixed to some extent (i.e., articles can now begin with lowercase letters, but the first letter is capitalized in the article's URL). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Trademarks_which_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter for more. —bbatsell ¿? 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For other articles where this is an issue, there's a note to this effect ("due to technical restrictions, the name of this article appears as.. the proper name is..) at the top of the article. -- phoebe 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for each generation?

I've noticed the pages for both the iPod photo and the fifth generation iPod, and I think that all generations of the iPod should have their own articles, which could be made accessible through the timeline. I think that if we include more in-depth info on each generation on this page, it will clutter up the article. --ApolloBoy 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What content do you intend to put? There's really not much that isn't said in the table, above the timeline.--HereToHelp 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainly technical information, such as dimensions and processor type, and detailed history on the model.--ApolloBoy 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that if we can put together pages of comparable size fo the photo+5th articles, then they each warrant a page of their own. --Oscarthecat 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But I don't want lots of stubs floating around. Besides, is that level of detail notable and source-able?--HereToHelp 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This page already seems to be straying outside Wikipedia rules to me. It exists, as I understand it, because the name has become iconic. This gives unfair advertising to Apple, does it not, as attempts to put up pages for every model of every type of consumer electronic device would, I think, be opposed. Personally I'd not object to such extension of the Wikipedia remit, but is it to be universal, as fairness requires? --Lindosland 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand some concern, but there's some precedent here isn't there? Other manufacturers have articles for each popular product they have, such as Nintendo, who have pages for many of their products, see . I'm inclined to say let's see how much suitable content gets added onto each new article. iPod is a big (and iconic) piece of pop culture, let's document it's early development like this. It's what Wikipedia is all about! --Oscarthecat 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Model section

The Model Section should be removed it sounds like an Ad for the IPOD.

Macworld 2007

This page was previewed by http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/ . 222.130.194.253 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Shoutouts are good. I think. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the iPod

I have a question, and I dont see the information on the article, what is the purpose of the iPod? why was it made?Gumbos 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

where's the video???

Bold textmy quesion for this artice is: where's the video??? i really think someone should put some stuff about the video on the article. i mean, their awesome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.29.44.244 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Apple use of wikipedia ipod page

The Apple promotional material for the iPhone includes someone googling for ipod and selecting the wikipedia page on ipod (which is then viewed in the phone). http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/ --Nantonos 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the DRM

Shouldn't the iTunes lock-down be added in?

Last I checked, it's impossible to use any iPod without going through iTunes, formatting it to Apple's format, and then using the program to load them onto the device. On top of that, I don't think iTunes can be (regardless of the law) WINE'd, or used with CrossOver Office, Caldega, or anything else like that, you'd need a windows or mac OS installed to use your iPod.

I remembered having read about someone trying to sue Apple for that (case is still ongoing) and I thought it would be a good idea to put it in there.

Best regards, 72.138.179.83 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Self-Appointed Dictator for Life of Slycorps.

As I understand it, there's some iTunes alternatives, see Comparison of iPod Managers. --Oscarthecat 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Global/national Market share?

At the moment only the US market share is mentioned which may give a very skewed picture about the global market penetration. I have only been able to find a few sources citing the global mp3-player market. Numbers from chip-manufacturers from 2004 put iPod at 8-10 percent, numbers from 2005 put iPod at 16 percent. Numbers from 2006 seem to tell a similar story - and this is not counting mp3-able cellphones which outsell iPod ten to one.

I can only speak from personal experience but where I live (Sweden) iPod is a very rare sight, on pair with offerings from Sandisk, Creative and the like and completely dwarfed by Nokia and the very successful Sony Ericsson Walkman-series which for many is the only DAP they need. What would be a proper source for statistics do you think? 81.233.73.177 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2007-01-16 /Håkan

If you don't cite sources for these numbers how are we to know that you haven't plucked out of thin air? AlistairMcMillan 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to assume good faith and be polite, User:AlistairMcMillan. If something is common knowledge, it doesn't need a reference.--IE 10:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what? "Numbers from chip-manufacturers from 2004 put iPod at 8-10 percent", is that common knowledge? Or "from personal experience...where I live iPod is a very rare sight"? Secondly, please look at User:81.233.73.177's previous edits and tell me how "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" does not apply. AlistairMcMillan 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Previous edits are irrelevant. All that matters is whether someone has added useful info or improved an article in some way. The quoted numbers obviously need a source, but a brief sentence, saying that iPod market share is lower in countries outside the USA, could be added to the article. The suggestion doesn't have to be dismissed completely. --IE 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a quick look at the contributions from User:81.233.73.177 , and I found no evidence whatsoever of any vandalism, POV or bad faith edits. Also, are you aware that 81.233.73.177 is an anonymous IP address, which means it can represent several people from a school or internet cafe etc? --IE 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it is just coincidence then that all the edits relate in some way to technology, and almost specifically to Microsoft or Apple. And that all the edits betray a bias towards Microsoft and away from Apple. You really think this is multiple random people?

And I never "dismissed completely" the suggestion, I just asked for the sources which 81.233.73.177 said he/she had "been able to find". AlistairMcMillan 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I never quoted any sources since information about the global market for mp3-players can be found in many places. The problem is that many of these numbers or estimates differ greatly. That's why I asked about were we may be able to find a proper source of information if such exist. The only thing we know for sure at the moment is that the common idea that the iPod command a 75 percent market share is way of. And to be frank - Apple's marketing division should be one of the least reliable sources available. 81.233.73.177 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) /Håkan

I feel like the discussion is getting sidetracked by irrelevancies. I read Alistair's intial question as a fair one, not intended to be rude. It's fair to ask that a factual statement be properly sourced as people will wonder whether it has been "plucked out of thin air". Statements about marketshare are quantitative statements that should be fully justified by actual data by a reliable source. Clearly the original query recognized that some sort of "proper source" would need to be cited here. I would suggest that since this data seems hard to come by, that the data (with source) be provided and then we discuss if it is "proper" or not. Adding a sentence that market share is lower outside U.S. based on what is, so far, anecdotal evidence, would just be a bad move. I don't see how that wouldn't just be speculation. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That the global market share is lower than US numbers is far from controversial, even Apple admits this.

Quoted from [2]

"BUT LISTEN TO APPLE ITSELF. That "image" you had of iPod's global dominance, when Apple talks of 77% etc - that you have heard in the press and with investors, analysts, etc, has ALWAYS been only USA. EVEN Apple itself admits OPENLY that in their four next best markets are way below USA - Australia 58% Japan 54% Canada 45% UK 40% (Peter Oppenheimer Apple CFO at Apple quarterly conference call April 19, 2006). Oppenheimer then admits that in most markets iPod share is very bad, their next good markets by market share are - Germany 21% and France 11%."

So - we do know that it's impossible for Apple to have a 75 percent or similar global market share UNLESS the US is the only market where mp3-players are sold - which we know is wrong.

Numbers from 2004, iPod at 8-10 percent. [3]

Numbers from 2004, iPod at 20 percent. [4]

Numbers from 2005, iPod at 23 percent (32 million iPods vs 140 million in total sales). [5]

If the predicted expansion is linear (a close enough assumtion to be accepted) 170 million mp3-players was sold in 2006, of these 46 million were iPods, or ~27 percent.

So - these numbers seem to tell us that while the iPod is increasing its global market share, it's still only in the ~25-30 percent range. Something I think should be noted since it's way to common that people assume that the iPod have 75 percent global market share. 2007-01-21 /Håkan

If Apple gave some figures, it would be best (and not too hard) to get the actual source rather than second-hand reporting by some blog with an obvious agenda. Some reliable third-party, like a newspaper, would be good also. The Business Week article from 2004 is good, but it states that its opinion opposes the majority of analysts, who believe global marketshare is "well over" 25%. I think the source is good enough to support a statement that global marketshare is considered by many analysts to be "well over" 25% in 2004. The other statements supported by the itfacts links seem to be the blogger's own research; the two links only report on the number of mp3 players sold. The blogger apparently is using data other than that in the links to come to the conclusions. Again, it would be best to just get that data directly from some reliable source, rather than accepting the authority of some blog. I think the sourcing so far is too weak to support the claim that market share is "only in the ~25-30 percent range" in 2006. By the way, please be careful of making assumptions (such as linear growth), as we have a no "original research" policy. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another more recent source is Apple's recent conference call. According to that they've passed the 50% market share mark in Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and the UK.[6]

However I don't think there are any official or even close to official numbers available. If someone can find something "reliable" then cool, lets add it to the article, but I don't think there is anything. AlistairMcMillan 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I found these numbers, still without original source. The important text is found in the end, "När det gäller iPodens marknadsandel har den sjunkit till 62 procent. Microsofts Zune har tagit två procent och övriga 36 procent delas mellan Creative, SanDisk och resten. Allt enligt Apples egna siffror." Translated from Swedish "When it comes to the market share of the iPod it's down to 62 percent. Microsoft Zune have captured two percent and the final 36 percent is shared between Creative, Sandisk and the rest." Unfortunately they don't tell us if it's the global or US market share. [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.73.177 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Universal Dock merge

Anyone have any comments on the merge and the content taken from the dock page? Tom H 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I agree that picture is better... I just didn't want to upset anyone by not transferring enough from the dock page ;) Tom H 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While the old image does illustrate the ports, and a crop of the picture at the top of the article could show the front of it, the image that I put there is better aesthetically. The transfer of the text is sufficient.--HereToHelp 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. Tom H 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)