There is an ongoing dispute on [[History of the iPhone]] [[Talk:History of the iPhone|<small>(talk)</small>]] subpage. It would be nice if some of the regular iPhone contributors could comment on this. I wish to see the best possible encyclopedia, but I realize that having a pointless edit war between two parties is not the way to accomplish it. -- [[User:KelleyCook|KelleyCook]] ([[User talk:KelleyCook|talk]]) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute on [[History of the iPhone]] [[Talk:History of the iPhone|<small>(talk)</small>]] subpage. It would be nice if some of the regular iPhone contributors could comment on this. I wish to see the best possible encyclopedia, but I realize that having a pointless edit war between two parties is not the way to accomplish it. -- [[User:KelleyCook|KelleyCook]] ([[User talk:KelleyCook|talk]]) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:I have stated my position on the [[Talk:History_of_the_iPhone#iPhone_3G_pricing_controversy_dispute|talk page]] for History of the iPhone. I would ask editors to fairly examine both sides. [[User:JCDenton2052|JCDenton2052]] ([[User talk:JCDenton2052|talk]]) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:I have stated my position on the [[Talk:History_of_the_iPhone#iPhone_3G_pricing_controversy_dispute|talk page]] for History of the iPhone. I would ask editors to fairly examine both sides. [[User:JCDenton2052|JCDenton2052]] ([[User talk:JCDenton2052|talk]]) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
== 3G In-store activation only ==
There has been no news from Apple (or to my knowledge AT&T) that the 3G iPhone will need to be activated in store. A 3rd party site citing a rumor but no official statement that this will be the case is insufficient to include a definitive statement that it will have to be activated in store.
Revision as of 16:13, 22 June 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPhone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
This page is not a forum for general discussion about technical issues/general comments. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about technical issues/general comments at the Reference desk.
Conflicting Information
I have noticed that the following two statements conflict with each other. This should probably be rectified to avoid any confusion.
Statement #1: The operating system takes up about 700 MB of the device's total 4 or 8 GB storage.[8]
Statement #2: As well, the 8 GB iPhone has been commonly noted[1] to list only 7.3 GB of disk space available, causing a rumor that the version of Mac OS X for the iPhone was 700mb. After further investigation, a df revealed that the size of the OS partition to be 300MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.191.18 (talk) 09:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Replacing all images of iPhone without interface
I say blurred images on iPhone is somewhat disturbing.
Why in the world would we show it without the interface? The hardware design is certainly owned by Apple, too, as is their logo... would we blur out those as well? -/-Warren21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the logic behind this blurring business especially since all other phones on wikipedia are allowed to keep the interface. But if the bureaucrats @ wikipedia decide it needs to be done it would be better to only have pics of the phone switched off. I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for showing pictures of the highly secretive iPhone interface so we might as well show them. Because to be honest all the blurred pictures look extremely stupid for lack of a better term. An ordinary reader might pass by this page only to spend the rest of their life wondering why the hell the pictures were blurred. Towel401 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ponder this issue in another direction... Rather than stating that we must have an image of X or Y, we should think about the purpose of the images themselves. I don't want to search for it, but I remember reading a Wikipedia guideline where images should be used in order to convey an idea that can't be described in words alone. Regarding the iPhone, I see a photo of the iPhone turned off no different than, for example, a sports car with the front hood closed. Showing the GUI on an iPhone serves only one purpose - to demonstrate what the GUI looks like. IMHO, this is well covered in the iPhone OS article - as the GUI in reality is actually iPhone OS and NOT the iPhone itself. Think about it... If I wanted to show someone an iMac, showing the GUI to me is useless because an iMac could also run Linux or Windows (Intel versions.) These are the things you must think about before you start uploading images to an article. With that, I believe that showing an iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable.
One other thing... In my last rant regarding GFDL, my premise there was to have the English Wikipedia version of the iPhone article published on the CD release of Wikipedia. If we start uploading images to English Wikipedia directly, bypassing Wikimedia Commons, then those images won't be published in the CD release. That is why it is HIGHLY ENCOURAGED that we upload all of our images to Wikimedia Commons so that our hard work can be found on the CD release. Groink (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think it is up to us to decide whether we use blurred images or not. The question is whether we are permitted to use clear images. Can anyone cite policies or guidelines which talk about this kind of image? (By the way, I noticed the iMac article shows iMac with the screen turned off. If showing the interface is not legally possible, I don't see what we can do about it. Finally, I agree with Groink in the problem of the use of images under fair use. -- Taku (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion, the images for the iPhone article must have NO interface, focus directly on the hardware itself. Anything related to the software portion should be placed on the iPhone OS article. This way, the blurring is avoided, since the iPhone article would focus on the hardware (such as multi-touch technology and etc. ), and the software interface (such as the keyboard, iPod software and etc.) would be focused more on the iPhone OS article. Beside, images of the OS interface is mostly on the OS article. (such as the home screen) Bentoman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that's missing the point. The point of iPhone is the tight integration of software and hardware. The virtual keyboard isn't pure software stuff, for example. That's why the images of the interface are relevant to the article. But, per my above post, if it is not possible to do it, then it's not possible to do it :) End of discussion? -- Taku (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible though. IPhone's keyboard is FULLY powered by iPhone OS. The hardware that powers the keyboard is the multi-touch screen. Remember, the keyboard is virtual, powered by an operating system, which is the iPhone OS. Therefore, having the image of the iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable. The keyboard interface image belongs to the iPhone OS article. Remember, multi-touch interacts the keyboard, the keyboard is part of iPhone OS. Bentoman (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The multi-touch screen is a hardware feature. But that feature makes no sense when the iPhone is turned off. It is relevant to "this article" to show the multi-touch screen at work. Showing the image of the virtual keyboard is one of the best way to do it, because words just don't sufficiently convey how it works. You can also notice that the image of the keyboard, one used in this article, shows a person's hands on the keyboard. That kind of the image doesn't belong to the iPhone OS article because it should only show what appears on the screen of the iPhone, not a person operating it. (So, a video of a person typing with the virtual keyboard is actually better but that's another story.) -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, you are right about that, but I think it is wise that some of the images be replaced. For example, the first image should be the phone itself, no interface (the home screen image is on the iPhone OS article, therfore the picture that shows the phone at the top of the article should be the hardware itself)
For the keyboard, show only the keyboard itself, along with the fingers that person is typing. The rest is blurred.
Third, the image where wikipedia page is shown, delete, there is already an image of it on the iPhone OS article itself.
If none of those action seems fesible, what do you suggest? This, I must have an answer for. If no solution is found, I have no solution but to have the admin lock the article. Bentoman (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoman (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
right|thumb|200px I just wanted to add while all of you are fretting about blurred interfaces on the iPhone photos, this image is still sitting in the article. Should we blur this too? It's OK under US fair use rules, but not for the commons. OK, who volunteers to blur this as well? And suggestions to separate the phone from the interface miss the broader issue that you can't properly explain one without the other. Mattnad (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here is another image from the article that demonstrates the iPhone interface - this time for photo viewing. If we're going to be consistent and exceed fair use rules, then we'll have to blur the photo elements here too. I think my point is we would damage the article if we held it to a higher standard than fair use doctrine which is what the proponents of blurring the interface images are asking.
Does it seem realistic that Apple will sue Wikipedia over images of the interface? I think not. Lawyers are expensive, and images of the interface can't possible be against the business interests of Apple. They are probably happy for the free publicity, and not itching to sue anyone in sight. 24.239.166.200 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The iPhone cannot be properly represented without displaying the unaltered interface. This is especially true considering that the iPhone is one of the most interface-dependent (i.e. minimal hardware interface) electronic devices in history. It is highly inconsistent that there are hundreds of "copyright" interface image of other less-known products that have not drawn fire, and probably will never do so. If I may quote my Lamentation of Copyright: More harm is done to the encyclopedia by editors enforcing copyrights than by the copyright owners enforcing them.--HereToHelp(talk to me)01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and I'll add this article is being subjected to a standard of copyright separate to from that of fair use in the USA. Some editors want this to be on a CD which must have images from the commons. In essence, this article should suffer for the aspirations to get it into a CD that far fewer people will see than on Wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These last two points should be read repeatedly until they sink in. We're here to write the Wikipedia. The online wikipedia. All else is secondary. Sorry Groink. Maury (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that some of you have a totally elitist point of view when it comes to editing English Wikipedia. Think about the thousands of English-speaking schools and other institutions who do not enjoy broadband or any other form of Internet access, in order to access the so-called primary form of this or any other article. The purpose of the CD project is to share information beyond just the Internet. May I remind everyone here that if any portion of the article does not meet the requirements of the Wikimedia Commons release, the article itself will be left out of the project. Groink (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying there are thousands of institutions that can afford computers, but not the $9.95 a month for dial-up internet access? In my opinion, if you were to poll these institutions that do not have access to the internet, this article on the iPhone is probably among the least of their worries. There is plenty of published material out there for those students who want to research this topic. And this isn't presidential politics so the "elitist" moniker really has no place here (and I don't particularly like Arugula either). It really comes down to how far we debase an article to get this into the CD that is so important to so few. Also, Groink, in all seriousness, you'll still have to excise the other pictures of the interface that are in the article under fair use. Why don't to do those edits now and ask the other editors whether it's worth it. Mattnad (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling us all elitists simply because we disagree with you.
I stand by my early comment, and KelleyCook's: Apple has absolutely zero copyright claim in this case. If you have any salient arguments against this point, let's hear them. If you do not, your argument is off-topic; as the images are totally free to use as we see fit, they can be used on the CD. Maury (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that the deletion of any image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is not logged for everyone to see. Previous uploads of Apple-developed images onto WC have been removed. I've seen this with many other Apple-related articles through the years. For the record, I do not see a problem using images that were created by people outside of Apple, such as taking a screenshot of the GUI. I never once argued that they were not allowed - that was an argument made by someone else and not me. As long as you upload the image to WC with a properly selected license and written rationale, the image should stick and everything I've said up to now would be solved.
Keep one thing in mind... The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to develop a centralized image repository for ALL Wikimedia-related projects. In short, the use of the image repository is highly recommended so that the dozens of different Wikipedia projects each do not upload the same images to its servers. Imagine the same iPhone image being repeated again and again and again on every server. And if a better image is available, you would need an account on every one of those projects, and log onto every one of them in order to change the image. Instead, all Wikipedia editors should be storing their images onto WC and link to them in their Wikipedia articles. I have not seen this use of WC being pushed on the Apple-related articles, but I've most certainly have seen the idea pushed on many others projects - as I've observed literally thousands of photos deleted from both WC and English Wikipedia on the basis of failing non-free status in the photos' rationale. For one to use English Wikipedia to as an image depository in order to avoid the non-free requirement (i.e. claim fair use over non-free) is ridiculous. Groink (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikimedia Commons line of discussion is a distraction. Your argument is all about efficiency and not about quality. This article does not need to use images from Wikimedia Commons. We can legally show the iPhone, with the interface intact, on English Wikipedia under fair use rules. So let's do it. For those other articles, let them use the degraded, stupid, idiotic, image of the blurred interface created to satisfy the extreme (and capricious) application of copyright rules on the Commons.Mattnad (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, notwithstanding the discussion about the copyright status of the pictures, the current banner picture is nowhere near the quality that we need to be leading off an article like this. I don't mean to offend, but really, we should still maintain a reasonable standard for these things.
I'm not uploading a replacement and getting thrust into the copyright debate (again), as I have had at least 2 get deleted and replaced with much poorer substitutes already, but come on folks, we've got to do better than this. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to chime in with the old request (see multiple archives where this is repeated) that the image be a real picture. As I am writing this, the image does look like a real picture of the iPhone and not a fake one, but often in the past people would replace the image with a "better quality" one that is basically a Photoshopped iPhone with an impossibly-clear interface (similar to what you would see on Apple's Web site, for example). -- Atamachat21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's real, which is why it doesn't look perfect. And I took it pretty early in the morning. Won't say it's my best work. The fair use rationale is pretty bulletproof for anyone who'd like to contribute an alternate (better) photo and fend off the legal arguments. Mattnad (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fantastic picture. My statement was aimed towards those who want to get a "better" picture (not necessarily Frijole either). In the past we used to get a lot of fake iPhone pictures up and I think it's better to have a real example. Though if Frijole or someone else finds a better-quality legitimate photo I'm all for it. -- Atamachat04:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture of the iPhone really needs to be replaced in my opinion. It really does not uphold to Wikipedia standards. I really think it should be reverted to a clearer picture, like the one before it. Dennin (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's lousy but we can't use this picture. Because it's fake. That's not a picture of an iPhone, it's an artist's concept of what an iPhone should look like. We need a good, REAL image of an iPhone. -- Atamachat19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a good image I in an article online. We will use it for educational purposes so it should be alright. It is the actual iPhone, not a fake, prototype or artists concept. Dennin (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current one is heavily post-processed, if not completely rendered, and is likely roundabout from apple.com, and not under a free license. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Unident) There is no way that is a real iPhone image, Dennin. We need a photo so people know what an iPhone actually looks like. -- Atamachat20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for a better photograph, but the version on there was explicitly taken from Apple's site and fails Wikipedia's fair use rules. I've reverted the image to the real, albeit imperfect, photographMattnad (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the hardware, while patented, is not copyrighted. You can take a picture of hardware and you'll be fine. Software is copyrighted, and is always copyrighted, therefore it is impossible to create a free-use screenshot of copyrighted software. However, Apple's photos are copyrighted, both hardware and software. So the hardware in an Apple photo is copyrighted, when it's possible to create a non-copyrighted version. The software isn't more copyrighted, though, just because Apple took a picture of something the hold the license for. Can we stitch a software screenshot from Apple with Wikipedian-created hardware?--HereToHelp(talk to me)13:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we can never get a free use image (which is suitable for the Wikimedia Commons), we are allowed under U.S. fair use to show a photo of the iPhone and its interface for an article dedicated to the topic. Check the rationale for the image. It's fine for the US Wikipedia article. Now with the legal distinction made, personally, I have no problem with someone developing a derivative work like that suggested by HereToHelp. Some others might for other reasons, but it's OK in the US under fair use. Mattnad (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to go back to this picture, it was a decent-quality picture showing a REAL iPhone, not an artist's concept of the iPhone as we have now. It was only abandoned when the whole "we can't show the iPhone interface" controversy started, and it was a great representation. -- Atamachat23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under U.S. law, this is a perfectly fine application of fair use, for reasons I've tried to outline at {{Apple fair use}} (feel free to edit it). However, WP:NFC maintains that Wikipedia maintains a standard higher than U.S. law. Quite frankly, though, it's in Apple's best interest to have their products depicted cleanly, as their photos do, rather than these third-hand not-so-good shots.--HereToHelp(talk to me)02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HereToHelp, Apple doesn't have "photos" on their web site. The main image you reverted isn't a photo. It's a fake representation that falsely shows what an iPhone looks like. I wish I had a perfect, glare-free screen with exactly perfect colors on my iPhone, but I don't and neither does anyone else. On a biographical page would you revert a decent photograph of a person with a stylish painting? I'm of course comparing a fake image with a Black BG.JPG real image. If the photo was an awful one I'd agree to use the fake one, but it looks like a very decent photo. The fair use claim is totally invalid, fair use is for when you don't have a free alternative. We do have one. To say "well I just like the fair use image better" doesn't seem to satisfy a fair use claim, and I'll again repeat that free image is a superior image because it's real. -- Atamachat22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, alright. I suppose this energy could more productively channeled into creating a better free-content image? Part of the reason I don't like the best free image is that the composition isn't straight-on. The background is distracting, too. Whatever. Fine.--HereToHelp(talk to me)22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll retract what I said about Fair Use. The photograph does include the iPhone interface and has a Fair Use claim because of that. Let's just let others have a say about this in the new section below. -- Atamachat23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup required
This article requires some serious cleanup. I'd do it myself, but someone decided to lock it like it was a controversial issue. Is it? It's not exactly great either.
The opening paragraph states:
The iPhone was initially introduced in the United States on June 29, 2007 followed by numerous other countries.
That's not very wikipedish. What "other countries"? Why numerous? Are they really numerous? The provided map of availability claims it's available in 6 (six) countries and announced in just above 30 others (out of over 200 countries there are). This is anything but numerous.
The iPhone allows (blah, blah) and integration with other cellular network features and iPhone functions.
iPhone has features compatilble with iPhone's features. Shocking.
The same section includes another nice sentence:
A ringtone feature was introduced in the United States on September 5, 2007, but is not yet available in all countries where the iPhone has been released.
A major showstopper for me. ;-) Please, have anyone ever heard about a phone, let alone a mobile phone, without a rigntone?
The Multimedia subsection contains a recurring phrase "previous iPods" in reference to iPhone. As the opening section suggests, iPhone is not an iPod, but a mobile phone with iPod functionality.
The Others subsection has on opening sentence that is unreadable. It would greatly benefit from rephrasing into something like that:
The iPhone features a built in 2.0 megapixel camera located on the back for still digital photos. It has no optical zoom, flash or autofocus, and does not support video recording.
Apple's site says that the battery life "is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles", which turns out to be the same as for the iPod batteries.
According to the first part of the sentence, it does not "turn out to be" but rather "is supposed to be".
The article is not locked, just semi-protected, which means you as an established user can WP:Be Bold. My only comment is to not go and list the other countries in the opening sentence -- that was real unwieldy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I must have been logged out when I've seen the padlock and didn't checked it after. Sorry. :-] Must be beginners bad luck. -- Llewelyn MT (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the infobox is pretty unwieldy with all of those countries, even when collapsed. How about "five other countries"? The majority of the data should be in the history and availability section, but Apple's list of countries doesn't provide much more than just names. Let's keep them in the infobox and not duplicate them elsewhere.--HereToHelp(talk to me)12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voted to hold, we'll see how it turns out. For now I'd say build on that article, it can always be merged. BJTalk18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my impression. I figure it is a different enough phone (not just a software change) that it may deserve its own article. I am sure we will see as things develop. I am keeping my eyes open for the first reilabe sources that surface. Chrislk02Chris Kreider18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 2G and 3G should remain as one article. Right now, there are not too many differences between these two models of iPhone. Besides, the older iPhone is not going to be sold in parallel with the 3G version. So, there is essentially still going to be only one model of the iPhone available for purchase. 71.146.5.104 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they will not be sold in parallel further supports separate articles. As updats and breakthroughs occurs for the 3G, the historic information on the 2g has great potential to be lost, over written or mixed up confused with the two. Chrislk02Chris Kreider19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←I strongly disagree with your protection of that article and ask that you unprotect it. I am unsure of how your protection fits in you our protection policy. Let consensus determine then sort it out from there. I dont want to wheel war so I kindly ask that you unprotect it. Chrislk02Chris Kreider19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to have time for a consensus to emerge. Besides, Apple seems to be using iPhone 3G, not 3G iPhone; if I unprotect one, it will be the former. However, I believe that having two articles will cause much of the basic information to be duplicated, causing redundancy and confusion. iPod nano seems to work fine, and the nanos are more different from each other than the 2 iPhones. A "Versions" header in iPhone with subsections for 2G and 3G is more appropriate. (The iPhone 3G exists; now that Apple has confirmed it that's not under debate. This is now a categorization and classification issue.)--HereToHelp(talk to me)19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the baove statement, My objection was to the principle of protecting a page to prevent creation when there was no consensus for or against it. By default, as I understand the wiki, we are supposed to create articles, put content. Later, if stuff needs to be merged, merge it, fix it up. However dont close the door till the community agrees. Perhaps I am not rogue enough? Chrislk02Chris Kreider19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, iPhone 3G is unprotected. I'll let the editing take its course and come back in a few days to clean up and sort out everything. My objective is to create the most well-organized, accessible, actual, and sourced information I (we) can. Totally separate articles will lead to much confusion and duplication of information. I support a section in iPhone outlining the differences or a separate iPhone versions article, which will focus on the distinctions but let iPhone handle to commonalities, not to mention social and economic effects.--HereToHelp(talk to me)19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility. ;) BJTalk19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a little hasty with protections against rumors (before apple.com was updated I consider that justified) but once announced, "trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility". Let's let the anons have their fun and in a few hours we'll try to carve an encyclopedia out of this mess.--HereToHelp(talk to me)19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody will be able to tell until we see how much text gets written and how different the phones really are. I don't much care where the 3G prose is written as long as it is in one place. (can always be split or merged later) BJTalk19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Heretohelp, there shouldn't be a seperate article for iPhone 3g. It's only a successor of iPhone (EDGE). We don't have seperate articles iPod Shuffle 1G, iPod Shuffle 2G etc., Instead a table showing clearly how the iPhone progressed over the generations would be better.
I was considering a table, which might highlight the differences between the two models, or if really necessary having these differences in a separate article (as distinct from a separate article for each version.) This works well in iPod#Models, but there might be a general consensus away from tables and towards prose, I don't remember.--HereToHelp(talk to me)11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does no one else know that the iPhone 3G is a different product to the iPhone? We (wikipedia) have a different page for every iteration of the iPods and Macs. Keep inline with the rest of your articles please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.175.206 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me. whois says that that IP belongs to a UK ISP; I'm in the US. Feel free to check though. Anyway, I was trying to argue that it should be treated the way cell phones are treated. I know that iPods and Macs don't have individual articles. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than argue, how about we calmly identify our objectives and options, find out what path best fits what we want to do, and take it. Feel free to add to either list, just sign afterwards.
Objectives:
Avoid information duplication/redundancy
Preserve historic information
Allow for the addition of new, future models without restructuring
Allow for the excited anons to add their information
Clearly identify and explain the differences between the two products.
Options:
Add a section in iPhone explaining the differences while everything else there applies to both models unless otherwise specified, like iPod nano (but more than just a list of versions)
Create one new article with these differences, or add it to History of the iPhone, and let iPhone talk about commonalities
Create separate articles for each phone focused on the differences and clearly subsidiary to iPhone, like iPod photo
Create separate articles for each phone and move most of the current information in iPhone to iPhone 2G, leaving the former as a disambiguation page, like HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II
Note - It seems to me that we just moved beyond the purposes of an AfD article and moved to a topic which should be in the Talk:iPhone page. I don't think the deletion question is real anymore, as it was when the suggestion was made. Does User:Roleplayer agree? - Denimadept (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither the original poster, an admin, or someone who has been dealing with Apple-related topics on Wikipedia, so I don't consider myself someone who should be messing with it that much. I got a little excited earlier and went beyond my normal area. :-D "Why" is a matter for elsewhere. OTOH, someone posted "BE BOLD" on my Talk page... - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the single article. Use the iPod article as an example. The editors there are able to jam dozens of different models into a single article. If you look up above in the previous sections of this talk page, you'll see my bit on how to re-org to avoid redundancy. Groink (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for those phones aren't of the same quality because they don't have the number of users or the amount of press as the iPhone. You can't reasonably argue that there aren't enough interested editors to write quality iPhone and iPhone 3G articles. The Wizard is the direct predecessor to the Tytn, so do some research and read WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, but what in my statement could that possibly be construed as a personal attack? I said (and stand by the fact) that those articles are poor inferring that they should not be used as examples — which has nothing to do with you personally. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents are important, but please see my next post on figuring out which to follow. And for a product as iconoclastic as the iPhone, we might need to set, rather than follow, a precedent.--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no individual cell phone as notable or as prominent as the iPhone or the iPhone 3G. If other cell phones are notable enough to have their own pages, why not for the different iPhone models? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing do with it. The information is/will be present; that's agreed upon. The question is how it is to be presented, so it's an accessibility issue. I would like to call attention to the poor state of separate articles. HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II are just lists of specifications and a few paragraphs on features if you're lucky. iPhone 3G hasn't developed beyond a stub (although it's only been a few hours); current activity seems to be based on whether it is thicker or thinner than the original. These articles are a mess. iPhone has lots of information in one place. So, in considering precedents, don't just say "we did this there, so we should do the same thing here". Evaluate how it turned out.--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there not enough interested editors to maintain quality, separate articles for both models? The iPhone has more press coverage and almost as many users as all Windows Mobile phones put together. And until the debate is concluded, I (and I presume others) think it's not worth putting in lots of effort developing a full iPhone 3G article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there might not be enough editors to contend with all the anons. You've added templates and categories [1], but you've hardly touched the text. But why bother when we have a perfectly good base at iPhone? There's a lot of similarity between the two versions because they are one product. If you try to create fully separate 2G and 3G articles, you will have to duplicate a lot of the hardware and software information. There's nothing wrong with having two sets of specifications in one place if we clearly mark which one is which, and talk about when various software features became available, and so forth. If you copy and paste a lot of this information, it will become twice as difficult to maintain over time and will have redundancy. We need to address the iPhone, not an iPhone. Two articles are confusing, and splits up information about history, trademarks, and unlocking that apply to both models of the same phone. A full 3G article is pointless and unnecessary.--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't think it's worth my time making major edits to the iPhone 3G article unless and until it is decided to be notable enough to keep. On a more practical level, what would you do with the infobox in the iPhone article if you merge them? Would you have two infoboxes? Right now it's a confusing mish mash of both models. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone else indicated earlier, the goal for this re-org is to avoid redundancy of information across two or more articles. I think the majority of editors will agree that the iPhone is a variation of the iPod, and NOT just another smartphone. Using the iPod touch as the foundation of the multi-touch based iPod, tack on a handful of hardware features and you have an iPhone. As you would see, there isn't much that distinguishes the iPhone from the iPod touch. That is why I recommended the iPhone article focus purely on the hardware, and leave out any mention of software other than the fact that it uses iPhone OS. Talk about the software in iPhone OS. In the near future, you will find that the multi-touch iPod platform will be similar to the iMac or Mac Pro hardware lines; it would be best for the future for all related articles if we prepare for an extensive line of these iPods. Groink (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go that far. I do understand the practicality of having iPhone OS referenced from the touch and the phone (and new MacBooks), but we need to give a summary of the how one interacts with an iPhone. The iPhone is an iPod, but's it's also a phone (phone data needs to stay here), and also something unique and unclassifiable. The reader should gain an overall view of the iPhone in one article. You're trying to siphon off hardware much like others are trying to separate hardware. Because of the level of detail and the iPod touch, I agree with you to a certain extent, but we need to provide more than just a link.--HereToHelp(talk to me)23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this in one thread, okay? I think one of the core issue is whether the new model is a brand new product or just an upgrade. This will help us decide which precedent is more important, cell phones (separate articles) or iPods (same article). iPhone 3G says/said "The iPhone [3G] is a smartphone produced by Apple Inc. It was announced as the successor to the iPhone..." I disagree. It is not a successor, like the iPod nano was to the mini, but rather just an upgrade, like generations of an iPod. The iPhone 3G is not just a smartphone, it is an--the--iPhone. I support option 1, maybe 2.--HereToHelp(talk to me)20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with HtH. The way I look at the iPhone hasn't changed at all with these updates. What I see is a 1.0 product replaced with a 2.0 product, with what that represents. I think one article, which sets the standard for future such upgrades, makes sense. Now, a separate article for the iPod Touch, that is a separate model of the iPhone. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To continue. Have a new section with "changes from v1 to v2" and let such differences leach there from the main article as they appear. When v3 is released, add a new section for "v2 to v3", etcetera. Or something like that. - Denimadept (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two seperate articles is too confusing for people who have no idea what Edge is. If two seperate articles is done then it should be version 1 and two, not edge and 3g, because when the next iphone arrives why'd end up with something stupid like, Iphone 3G but this one also has XY, nope, that doesnt quite work. lol. There isnt much difference between the two models so why not just keep them all under this article "iPhone" and make a category called models. Subcategory, Version1 explaining features and Subcategory Version2 explaining what else its got. Thats what i think. =) Smiley =) (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Single article. We don't have separate articles for each revision of the iPod. We've got separate articles for the iPod Shuffle and suchlike, but those are distinct products which were sold in parallel, whereas the iPhone 3G is an incremental update to the existing iPhone product. There's simply too much that's the same between the two to justify a completely separate article. Zetawoof(ζ)02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than argue about this any longer, I've decided to be bold and prove that we can and should have all this information in one article by creating an integrated article. I invite all of you to channel the energy we're spending arguing into constructive article building.--HereToHelp(talk to me)02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information about officially distributing apps ONLY by app store is no longer accurate, "ad hoc" method mentioned by Steve Jobs during keynote.
see http://db.tidbits.com/article/9646
"A new distribution method, Ad Hoc, requires developers to register for a certificate that enables them to seed software on up to 100 iPhones. As an example, Jobs cited a computer science professor who could distribute an application to students."
The App Store only statement still holds true. Each of the 100 iPhones still need to connect to the App Store to get the application. The certificate is stored at the store. Groink (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the iPhone article, all we need to do is address point #2 which would be to make a distinction between a WAP web browser and a "full" web browser. Most people define full or "real" as being able to fully render a non-WAP web page. Most phones still do only WAP, as stated in this article where in August 2007, less than 10-percent of all phones are able to render real web pages. As for #1, Steve Jobs mentions "real web" pages or browser support on the iPhone several times in his presentation in June 2007 - the iPhone introduction. And, web pages such as this one brings it up as well. As for #3, that is beyond the scope of validating a statement. We don't have to use the iPhone article to validate what other phones can or cannot do. Groink (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only dumbphones can only handle WAP, and Apple isn't competing with them. Every smartphone can render "full"/HTML pages. However, many have lower resolution screens than the iPhone 3G or worse browsers. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have the slightly different, but even more POV statement: Unlike almost every other mobile device, the web browser displays complete web pages similar to a desktop web browser and supports zooming by double-tapping the screen.
Almost every other? Regarding the above comments, whilst it may be true that most phones in circulation still only do WAP, the statement would be read as implying it has something that hardly any other phone on the market has. The statement is equivalent to "The Iphone has a feature which old cheap phones don't" - which obviously no longer sounds worth stating.
Consider: would it be okay to say the Iphone has vastly more memory than any other phone, on the basis that the sample includes all phones most of which still only have small amounts of memory? Of course not - these sorts of statements could be made of any new phone. The reader is going to be interesting in how the Iphone compares to other phones on the market, especially similarly priced ones, and does not want to be mislead by comparisons against all the old phones still in circulation.
And I'm not sure what in the reference supports the claim about how the web browser differs from "almost every other mobile device"? Mdwh (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather pointless to compare the iPhone to dumbphones. That leaves smartphones, such as those running Blackberry OS, Palm OS, Symbian, or Windows Mobile. I mainly follow Windows Mobile. Most current Windows Mobile phones that compete with the first generation iPhone have smaller screens (usually 320x240) and browsers that aren't as good as Safari Mobile. However, they do render "full" HTML pages and have two advantages over the first generation iPhone: Flash support and 3G (browsing on EDGE is painfully slow). Upcoming Windows Mobile phones that will compete with the iPhone 3G have larger screens (640x480 and 800x480) and better browsers--IE Mobile 6.1, Netfront 3.5, Opera 9.5, and two ports of WebKit[1][2]. So, that statement is ludicrous. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ludicrous, it's accurate. It's just irrelevant. You can also say the iPhone lets you browse the Web better than almost every toaster, and it's true, but who cares? -- Atamachat23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion at iPhone's talk page as well as the AFD linked to the top of this page. There is no consensus for HereToHelp's executive decision, and it should be ok to write the article here. It may later get merged or sorted out but as of now, this page is a go. Chrislk02Chris Kreider19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be kept separate and written accordingly for the iPhone 3G and they should be referenced from an appropriate disambiguation page. --Kariudosan (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For this product, the price is very complicated. Not only do you have to consider the plans, but there are also a lot of hidden costs. For example, firmware upgrades have a cost, which is very unusual. So, either cover it fully, or don't get into it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced view point on the Iphones gross defeciencies
The apples hyped 3g iphone does not support 3g features which are standard and which people expect such as 3g video calls, video recording. It is important to state that the Iphone despite its hype and high price tag does not support such features for the benefit of the reader, as otherwise a notneutral point of view is given.
The main people who remove the lack of standard 3g features of the iphone are Appples fanboys probably and I request them to leave the unsupported features there.
I live in Sri Lanka, A poor third world country, I use the cheapest 3g phone the LG KU250, which is about 100 US$. But it supports 3g video calls, video recording, MMS, A2DP etc. People should know that the much hyped iphone 3g, just is a plain iphone with added 3g support for faster data rates and with not much 3g features in it.Kerr avon (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, when you say a phone is 3g, it is expected to support 3g video calls, otherwise its not playing it fair. It is sad to see americans are able to be fooled to easily. All apple has to do is to take the old iphone, just add 3g data transfer support and the entire USA falls to their feat in amazement as if it is the second coming of christ! There is no mention of the lack of MMS support, lack of video calls, lack of video recordings, things which have been on the cheapest 3g phones for years. And any attempt to highlight the deficiencies on wikipedia is immediately censored.
We from Sri Lanka are a dirt poor third world country, but we have been using 3g phones for years making video calls, sending MMS's, using 3g blackberrys, so it is sad when we see years old technologies, technologies we have been using for years and have been taken for granted, been marketed just purely on hype and sold of to your countries unsuspecting people. Even a public beggar here knows that when a phone has 3g on it, that it supports video calls and has a front side camera!Kerr avon (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to cover these things. That's what separates Wikipedia from Apple's advertising. To that end, we should use Apple sources for facts and features but third party sources for criticisms.--HereToHelp(talk to me)13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Series vs. one unit
There were a few reverts between JCDenton2052 and KelleyCook about ten minutes ago. The former advocates defining the iPhone as a series of phones; the latter says it's just a phone. I have a hunch the JCDenton2052 is coming from a background of cell phones while KelleyCook is thinking of iPods. I have my own opinion, but I'd like to see you resolve, or at least discuss, this issue peacefully here rather than in warring edit summaries.--HereToHelp(talk to me)18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's disingenuous to label two separate models as the same. All other cell phone models are correctly treated separately, even if they are less notable or less differentiated than the iPhone series. As far as portable media players, iPods seem to be the exception to the rule on Wikipedia. For example, the first sentence of Zune is "Zune is a brand of digital music products and services sold by Microsoft." and there are separate articles for separate models. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is worthy to point out that so far no one from WikiProject Macintosh has either chimed in or has been approached for further advice on the categorization matter. According to the top of this very talk page, the iPhone article belongs to this WikiProject, and is of top-priority to the project. Although some editors feel the iPhone is just a phone, many members of WikiProject Macintosh would more like have a differing opinion. Groink (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if KelleyCook had allowed members from that project time to comment on the discussion about merging iPhone 3G with iPhone before unilaterally turning iPhone 3G into a redirect to iPhone. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, don't let the word "Macintosh" fool you. If you study the project, there are many non-Macintosh hardware and software articles. The reason why I agree with KelleyCook's direction is that the organization has precedence. It is along the same organizational structure as other Apple-related hardware, such as:
* iPod
* iMac
* Mac Pro
* Apple II, etc.
As for comparing Apple equipment to other vendors (Microsoft, etc.), I wouldn't say that any one organization is an exception to Wikipedia standards. The fact of the matter is that there are no Wikipedia standards when it comes to organization of this nature. That is why they set up WikiProjects - to handle articles that encompass a common idea - in this case merchandise developed by Apple Inc.
In contrast, telephones do not have a WikiProject - especially cell phones. I checked several phones just now - including the Motorola Razr (the phone I use), and they weren't a part of any project. So one cannot say that all phones manufactured by Motorola should fall under one article because no one has taken the due diligence to create a WikiProject and manage it. That's where articles related to Apple have an advantage over others. Groink (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It probably should be WikiProject Apple but the Mac name is too entrenched. (Speaking of it, I'm considering writing a guideline for Apple product launches, since they seem to be the most secretive yet most speculated-on in the industry.) I'll also preemptively refute anything based on Macintosh or iPod, both of which define their subjects as a brand name of a line of computers or mp3 players. The key difference between a line and a product is that multiple iPods and Macs have been and are available concurrently. Such, because the only variations available concurrently are/will be storage capacity and color, which are trivial, we should refer to the iPhone in the singular. A definite pronoun (the) is to be used unless referring to a specific unit, when an indefinite pronoun (an) is to be used.--HereToHelp(talk to me)19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is best to have two seperate entries for the iphone. So far the only real change has been addition of 3g to enable fast data transfers nothing else really, so a common article may suffice. But when sufficiently diversified models comes a single article will be confusing, and its better to have seperate articles now.Kerr avon (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about we wait until there a sufficiently different model to create a new page. As you have stressed before, the iPhone 3G is pretty much just the previous year's iPhone with an upgrade to HSDPA speed added. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we don't know that. In order to support UMTS, HSDPA, and AGPS, the iPhone must have a completely new chipset. This could mean a faster processor, more RAM, etc. Until the phone is released and people get their hands on it, we won't know how much it has changed internally. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That can all be delineated under specifications; I think the common, original, and 3G subheadings do a fine job. However, the end user experience is the same. So it might find your location more accurately with GPS, download faster and make clearer calls, but it doesn't do anything significantly different from an original iPhone running iPhone OS 2.0.--HereToHelp(talk to me)17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Straw Poll
Lets get down to the nitty gritty:
The article was recently changed[2] to convert the article to refer to the iPhone series instead of an iPhone.
Singular: The second generation iPhone 3G is not being sold along side with the first iPhone which (in the U.S. at least) is no longer available. There really is only one iPhone with some slightly different featuresets. Apples still uses the same url for their website: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html and doesn't have a page for the superceded model. For a mindset issue, I don't come from an iPod background, nor do I even own an iPhone. I actually come from the mindset that the iPhone is much more than a phone, it is a mobile communications/internet device. What makes users of iPhone rave has nothing to do with technical specs, it has everything to do with how it has actually changed the way they perform their daily routines. Therefore an iPhone is an iPhone is an iPhone. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other new cell phones (with their own articles) are not sold along with previous models, so that argument doesn't hold water. The differences between the first generation iPhone and iPhone 3G aren't completely known yet, but are at least as great as the differences between other cell phone models that have different articles. I think you're trying to define smartphone. Several current and upcoming smartphones meet or exceed the iPhone's capabilities, but they aren't all in one article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JCDenton2052: See the comment bellow about OSE and precedents. KellyCook: An iPhone (to me) refers to a specific iPhone unit; iPhones refers to multiple units, and the iPhone refers to the product as a whole.--HereToHelp(talk to me)17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's where I disagree. iPhone - much like iMac, Macintosh Pro, iWork, Apple II, etc. are all trademark of product families. There are actually individual articles for each Apple II or Macintosh model, but there lies an umbrella of sorts article that encompasses and tracks all of them. There should be an iPhone article, just like the iPod article, that tracks all models of iPod. Groink (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Singular: The argument that other stuff exists is not valid. Forget imitating what editors have done in other articles and focus on doing this one correctly. Comparing the 3G iPhone and the older one, there are so few differences that having two articles is going to result in either one of them being a stub, or a large duplication of information. The 3G should have a section in the iPhone article, not its own article. -- Atamachat15:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KelleyCook already decided that there should be one article. What we're debating is whether the iPhone should be referred to as a series of phones, or whether it should be referred to as one model, now that a new model exists. JCDenton2052 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Atama. It's not about what has been done--absolute consistency in an encyclopedia, especially a gigantic one like this, is a losing battle--but about what will best serve the readers in this particular instance.--HereToHelp(talk to me)17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that what we do doesn't have to be set in stone, if 6 months from now the 3G section is somehow too large it can have a spin-off article of its own. I just don't see that happening now and probably not ever. As to whether or not to call it a "series" or not, I would defer to Apple. What nomenclature are they using? -- Atamachat19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apple doesn't use any article, rather just "iPhone 3G puts even more features at your fingertips," and so forth.[3] They do this with iPods, too, but non-Apple usage almost never follows that; "the iPod" is most common as spoken. That's what we use for iPod nano.--HereToHelp(talk to me)19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more confusing to have duplicate information that makes it difficult to find the differences among the (much larger number of) similarities.--HereToHelp(talk to me)17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Singular as roughly 90-percent of both iPhone models are the same. Seriously - it won't end up being huge article, or confusing to the reader. As I've mentioned before, use the iPhone OS article to cover the software aspects, and that should leave the iPhone article less bloated. Groink (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Battery capacity
"When the battery reaches only 80 percent capacity, based on the original estimates, it would be rated for approximately 5.6 hours of video, 4.8 hours of web browsing, 6.4 hours of talk time, or 19.2 hours of music playing, depending on configuration."
Does anyone have a source for this? I doubt the accuracy of the calculation. With 80 percent capacity it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be able to do 80% of what a 100 percent capacity battery could do. As far as I know, you need at least a certain percentage of energy in the battery to be able to do anything at all. That is, a battery may be useless below, say, 40 percent capacity. The ratio would be 3:2 instead of 5:4 in this assumption. 202.40.139.170 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists 'bluetooth 2.0 + EDR' as a feature of the phone. That is correct. On the other hand, it doesn't mention the profiles supported. I think the list of profiles is noteworthy because it is very unusual: the original iPhone only supports HSP and HFP. I'm not saying this is good or bad - but there is no other phone like this so it is worth noting.
When we find out what profiles the iPhone3G supports this information should be added to the article. I would add it now but I don't have this information yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently at Flickr there are posts about getting a free image for this article. [4][5] If that succeeds then we should have a pretty good image to head the article up.
Otherwise, if we are going to use a non-free image why don't we use the best quality image that we are able to obtain -- one directly from Apple. No offence to Aido2002, but the IPhone Home.png is a better photo.
I'm of course advocating the first image, but it's incorrect that the second image is a "better photo", it is not a photo. It's a CGI mockup. If a large number of people say "let's go for an artist's rendering of an iPhone instead of a real picture" then I will go along with consensus, sure. -- Atamachat22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - you're never going to get a free image. We've had free images before, but if you try to use a free image (which means it doesn't show the iPhone software) then it will be removed because it's not representative enough of the iPhone, that's never going to happen. -- Atamachat23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any picture that shows the software of the iPhone is fair-use. I'm not sure why you say that they are artists renderings, perhaps they have been 'touched-up' by Apple but they are still representative of the iPhone.
When I say a free image of the iPhone, I mean a photo that has the iPhone turned off. Simple, just the hardware. I don't think that a photo with the interface blurred works. Thanks, Monkeyblue23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing about an un-powered iPhone... If the phone had nice physically clickable buttons, a company logo and such, then yes the phone would be photo-friendly. However, the problem with the iPhone is that it looks like a rectangular black bar. That's the challenge we have here! It would be like tearing off a piece of black electrical tape and taking a photo of it, versus taking a photo of the roll itself. I have faith - a creative person with expertise in photography can come up with a good quality photo of an un-powered iPhone. Groink (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not sure why you say that they are artists renderings, perhaps they have been 'touched-up' by Apple but they are still representative of the iPhone." They are fake. For example, this is an artist's representation of a Big Mac, while this is a photograph. The Apple.com CGI version of an iPhone has an impossibly clear screen with perfect colors, etc. It's not what a real iPhone looks like. In absence of a real image I'd say that at least the fake picture gives an idea of what an iPhone looks like, but why not use a real photo? -- Atamachat01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do favor Apple's CGI; I'm fine with the "not a photograph" thing but the legal issues are a mess. Let me play devil's advocate: while the interface will always be copyright, the hardware in Apple's renderings is also copyright. So a free image of the phone turned on is "free-er" than Apple's imagery, despite still having a fair use interface. (By the way, I think the need to show the interface in the infobox, method aside, complies with U.S. law and Wikip(m)edia policy.) Anyway, I think we have a valid fair use claim for Apple's imagery as I have outlined at {{apple fair use}}. It doesn't much matter to U.S. law about the possibility of a free-er, but not free, image. However, that does matter to Wikip(m)edia. And so we're forced into the lovely world of different parts of an image having different licenses. Part of the problem is that--as someone who follows WP:FPC--I haven't found any free iPhone image that gets anywhere near something Apple would. The closest thing I've seen used to be at iPod, until it was deleted. I'm investigating. Anyway, I'd love to use Apple's images, but they don't really comply with WP:NFC. I'd love to use the free images, but frankly, they suck.--HereToHelp(talk to me)02:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as free-er, just free and non-free. Wikimedia would like all images to be able to be licensed under a free image license. As soon as we notice that we are unable to obtain a free image for an article and it's necessary (already noted) then we aim to use the best image available to us. That image is the one directly from Apple.
I'm not a lawyer, rather I was only repeating what I've gathered from similar discussions. Wikipedia:No legal threats doesn't give any links to say, legal consulting on such issues. If Monkeyblu is right am I'm wrong, the only reason against using Apple's renderings it that they're, well, renderings. I'm okay with that; Atama is not. Moreover, we need to confirm exactly what the licensing is.--HereToHelp(talk to me)11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that a while back, I spent 3 or 4 hours one night setting up and taking a bunch of pictures of my iPhone, expressly to get a good one to use here on Wikipedia. Arguments like these led to its being tagged as fair use, then it was orphaned for a horribly ugly one of a powered off phone, and it was deleted. You can rest assured that I won't put that sort of effort into this or any article again. Its something you might want to keep in mine while you argue back and forth about copyright minutiae (such as the interface being included preventing the image from being licenses as the photographer wishes, never heard of that before drama on this article) that none of us are really qualified to pass judgements on. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasted a lot of time in these debates earlier. I've made reference to the "hard-core" types who will not allow anything they deem as copyvio even if there's no clear legal expertise at work. I've pulled back from editing here for the same reasons.Mattnad (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to be able to not deal with copyright issues but we have to. I think what this comes down to is:
Must we use a photo?
I think you know my answer. Even if we decide that we must then there are better photos out there ([6] for example) than the image that is currently leading the iPhone article.
"licenses as the photographer wishes", the reason that we have fair use is because we are unable to license our images of copyright material the way we wish. Thanks, Monkeyblue13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a photo is preferred when a decent one is available. But if I'm in the minority then I won't make a stink about it. The image from Apple isn't bad, it gives an idea of what an iPhone looks like, but it's almost like having a picture of Bugs Bunny in the lead of the Rabbit article. (Okay it's not that extreme but you get the idea.) It's not a big deal it's just my opinion. -- Atamachat18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the photo of the unpowered iPhone but its screen has the cover on it. I think that the image from William Hook [3] is high quality and it's photo :). A problem might be that it a moded home screen. Photoshop? Otherwise I think we might have found our solution. Monkeyblue07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well your photo didn't last long. Deleted before we could look at it. Again the "non-free" fascists strike again. See why Wikipedia is starting to suck.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute... I5 for CSD which was stated for the reason for deleting the image specifically states that the image is to be tagged for 7 days before deletion. I think that deletion should be undone. -- Atamachat15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably get a mention in the see also section or incorporated into the article, since it is a perfectly legit article with lots of refs and is directly related to the iPhone. Don't know who removed it the second time Towel401 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it has nothing to do with the iPhone device as it was AT&T that screwed up their billing. But it is relevant for the History of the iPhone article. Furthermore, it is included in the iPhone and iPod Touch navigation box at the bottom. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pricing History section of article
Could someone create a subsection in the main Iphone article that details its pricing history?
I think it would be helpful.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.218.208.49 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I wrote about this in an earlier entry (in the archives now.) In short, certain types of prices, such as $666 for an Apple I are noteworthy. Because English Wikipedia is international, each mention of just one price ended up creating a huge list of conversions. And keeping up with the conversions due to the U.S. dollar changing added to the headache. Another thing to point out - I think most Web 2.0 thinking people want everything in one place. That is NOT the intent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be more of an introduction to an idea, and not a humongous article containing every little detail (which is why we have different types of Wikimedia projects, such as Wikinote, Wikipedia, Technical Wiki, WikiSource, etc.) It is OKAY and an accepted practice for a person to visit multiple resources on the Internet for information on the iPhone - trust me! Maybe I'm one of those who've yet to accept Web 2.0, but that's just me. Groink (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet other editors believe in using reason, consensus, and policies to determine whether something belongs in an article, and therefore don't subscribe to either philosophy. -- Atamachat23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That pricing history is a perfect example of the exception to the rule. As stated in WP:TRIVIA regarding price information, "Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation." The History of the iPhone addresses controversies relating to iPhone pricing, and it's necessary to list what those prices were to explain those controversies. However, including price history in an article just to inform people about how much an item costs or used to cost is inappropriate. -- Atamachat23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that what I said doesn't apply to the entire article. For example, in the History of the iPhone article it lists what the iPhone cost when it was first released, for no other reason than to inform someone of the original cost. That's an example of using Wikipedia as a (historical) price catalog. If it went on to say something like, "these prices were considered extremely high" and had a reference to back that up, then it might be justified, but again giving pricing information just to give pricing information isn't what Wikipedia is for. -- Atamachat23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing dispute on History of the iPhone(talk) subpage. It would be nice if some of the regular iPhone contributors could comment on this. I wish to see the best possible encyclopedia, but I realize that having a pointless edit war between two parties is not the way to accomplish it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no news from Apple (or to my knowledge AT&T) that the 3G iPhone will need to be activated in store. A 3rd party site citing a rumor but no official statement that this will be the case is insufficient to include a definitive statement that it will have to be activated in store.
