Talk:IPhone

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)

Criticisms?

I'm wondering why this article doesn't have a criticism section. I've read numerous reports on the iPhone's shortcomings, like lack of MMS and so forth, and these should be mentioned here to have a balanced article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayda (talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged, please read WP:CRIT. Criticisms of the iPhone are integrated throughout the article as they should be. If you read the article instead of skimming it for a criticism section you'll find plenty.

We really need a template at the top of this talk page explaining this. I swear that every time a discussion about how the article "needs a criticism section" gets archived a new discussion starts, and we rehash the same thing over and over. -- Atama^chat 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

The term iPhone was originally used in the screenplay for Johnny Mnemonic, written in 1991, by William Gibson. I wonder why this information does not appear as the first entry in the Patents/copyrights/trademarks section. And, I wonder why an instance in 2006 precedes the 1993 infogear trademark application.

Also, as an aside, I wonder why this page is uneditable. The disgruntled feelings of consumers are of historical importance, and make the iPhone's pricing of historical importance. That is, unless culture and cultural appeal is considered pointless to wikipedia. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 15:31, 29 June 2008

If you can cite a reference for the "iPhone" on the Johnny Mnemonic screenplay, that would be awesome. My casual pokings didn't turn up anything. And the page is semi-protected to protect against persistent vandalism by anonymous and newly created accounts. For more information about what semiprotection does and doesn't mean, check out Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I Don't have a copy with me, so I couldn't tell you the page number, but a Thompson iPhone is one of the items Johnny needs when he and Jane break into the computer warehouse. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 12:19, June 30 2008

I don't understand what the use of a word in a movie has to do with copyright. If the word was indeed used in the movie, it is just a made up word, and it has no relation to the Apple product. It would more likely fall under a trivia section, which BTW is a section not recommended to be used on Wikipedia. In all, this is more fancruft than something of importance to this article. Groink (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be the first posting in pop-culture references, then. I'm kind of new. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 12:21, 30 June 2008

And iPhone is a trademark. You can't copyright a single word and there's no likelihood that anyone might think Apple is plagiarizing such a horrible movie. Apple has naming conventions that include "i" (e.g. iBook, iMac) so that's why they paid Cisco for the right to use it for this smart phone. Mattnad (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

However, there is reason to expect that someone from Infogear, in 1993, might have been a friend or fan of the world's most popular computer-fiction author, and might have had access to it, then. And what do your personal opinions of the movie: "horrible", or the possibility: "no likelihood", have to do with the value of the information, itself? Allex Spires(zerooskul)12:34, June 30 2008

The iPhone used in Johnny Mnemonic is a phone-card attachment for a payphone that allows the payphone to act like a modern iPhone(minus the portability). And to quote the article: "Infogear's trademarks cover "communications terminals comprising computer hardware and software providing integrated telephone, data communications and personal computer functions"." So the object featured in the story does bear a remarkable resemblance what you consider to have no likelihood. Allex Spires(zerooskul) 14:51, June 30 2008

Wikipedia isn't a place for personal theories and speculation, see the no original research policy. If you can find a reliable source for your ideas then we can add it, see WP:RS for ideas about reliable sources. As for the Infogear phone, there's a totally different article about that, the link is at the top of the article (Linksys iPhone). The reason why "iPhone" directs to this article and not the other iPhone is because the Apple version of the phone has had a greater impact on culture and technology. Most people don't even know there's a different iPhone, and the Linksys version would have faded into obscurity as just another VOIP phone if it wasn't for the recent controversy over the trademark. In any case, welcome to Wikipedia and it's good to have you here. -- Atama^chat 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~, it saves you from having to type your signature over and over and it looks more "official" as a signature. -- Atama^chat 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion of the movie was more in fun than anything else. But in my opinion, had the marketing people Apple seen that movie, they would have trashed the "i" naming convention to avoid anyone connecting their products to Keanu Reeves' acting in that film. Yech. Mattnad (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that the movie was popular with computer users at the time of its release; and Apple is not the originator of the term iPhone. Read further, I've conceded. Allex Spires(zerooskul)16:52, June 30 2008

Oh PUL-EASE! EVERYONE involved in this argument came up with iPhone. Infogear came up with iPhone. Apple came up with iPhone. Linksys/Cisco came up with iPhone. Anyone in the future who never heard of Apple, Cisco, Infogear, etc. who comes up with the word iPhone will be original. You think that only one person or company in this world can come up with any one word/idea/etc, and everyone else copied. I'll give you an example here: calculus. Calculus was supposedly discovered by two different people, at two sides of the world, at two different time periods. Most people believe that "Oh, man, that 2nd guy must have read the 1st guy's manuscript!!!" when in fact it was just sheer coincidence. Going back to Apple/Cisco, here's what I believe happened... Apple didn't do the due diligence in researching who owned the trademark for iPhone. Once Apple announced the name iPhone, Cisco immediately called Cupertino. Apple then realized, "Oh, s**t! We didn't know!" but eventually settled out of court because it was such a good name for its product. I believe this because Apple is known to take a word or phrase, and then try to make it its own invention - regardless of what's already out there. The term "multi-touch" is a perfect example. Many of the Apple fanboys believe that Apple invented the term.

Two things to get out of this argument: 1) Not everyone on this planet is in-tune with everyone/everything else. We can in fact have multiple original idea for a given concept; the world is large enough to make this possible. And 2) If you do not do the due diligence in researching for potential conflicts, you're going to pay the price. Groink (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

zerooskul... First, your theory on Infogear is just that - a theory. We can't allow theories to be added to Wikipedia, and then wait later on to see if someone can prove it. Second, you cannot use yourself as a source - as Wikipedia does not allow primary sources to be used. You must be able to cite a credible source, written by a credible contributor (i.e. someone adding this tidbit on IMDB would not count.) The source would need to be a quote from an Infogear or Cisco employee since they're the one who were allegedly inspired by the movie and applied for the trademark to iPhone. And third, you must ALSO prove that the people at Apple Inc. were inspired by the Linksys device and basically "stole" the name from Cisco. But there is more evidence out there to disprove all of this - as someone else indicated that the pattern used by Apple (placing "i" next to words like Pod, Work, Mac, etc.) would naturally crank out the word iPhone. Groink (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does allow theories: proved ideas accepted by groups(evolution, Grand Unification); it does not allow hypotheses: unproved ideas of individuals(except fictional characters like: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jesus Christ, and God; because of their popular appeal). Yes, that pattern is there, iPod, iBook, iEtc.; but the article points out quite clearly that the origin of the term iPhone has nothing to do with Apple Computers, and that Apple had to buy the the trademark and concept outlined in that trademark. So the fact of a pattern is pointless; don't argue for what you know is wrong... That said, I just went back and watched the movie; he actually asks for Thompson Eyephones(referring to a virtual reality helmet). The telephone attachment I referred to earlier is a different, unspecified piece of equipment... I also noticed that everyone in the movie refers to Johnny as a pneumonic courrier(a person carrying pneumonia) instead of mnemonic(a term for a memory assist, wherein you pronounce the em: m'nemonic).In the fututre I'll do research beforehand, rather than expecting my memory to be that good. All that said, the movie does phonetically feature an iPhone and the processes specified by the iPhone trademark. However, I concede because this will only get silly. Allex Spires(zerooskul)16:36, June 30 2008

Theory about how the world was made, and who came up with the term iPhone first are on TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEVELS. When I said "theory", I would never have dreamed that someone would actually take the term to that extreme of a level. Theory that has been argued for centuries - yes, that is allowed on Wikipedia because a gazillion people - from philosophers to Al Gore have written about it. Theory about something on the level of fancruft that only 0.0000000000062 percent of the population would care about - I'm pretty sure Wikipedia wouldn't allow it. Groink (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was going to get silly. I'm almost being bullied. I have concecded, but I'll see how silly it gets. How would you define those levels? I Think the world was created by fish falling into a bowl of magma. See? Same level. The reason you wouldn't dream of someone taking THEORY to that extreme level of using its definition is because your school taught you that the English language was a toy when it's actually a tool. Newspeak makes it impossible for people to understand each other, though we seem to speak the same language. It's not your fault. Are you sure that sixty-two trillionths of a single human is all of the world that would care about the possible Jeopardy answer of: "He coined the term: iPhone." Or is that a hypothesis? I'm pretty sure that the dweebs and stay-at-home husbands and wives from here to either Portland would gobble that up for crossword potential. My hypothesis is that WikiPedia would allow such a pop-culture reference to be implanted. But, it's not him and I was wrong. Is this going to get sillier? Allex Spires(zerooskul)23:39, June 30 2008

But you do know the difference between a scientific theory and speculation about the origins of the iPhone trademark. In all seriousness, it's this kind of language gaming that has been used by proponents of Intelligent design with their Teach the controversy tactics. Mattnad (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of technical issues/general comments. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. Yes, speculation is hypothesis. Theory is at least somewhat confirmed within the community. I already went over that. You read, right? Allex Spires65.60.141.101 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy there Mnemonic fanboy. For someone who doesn't use an account, making threats to enforce policy is a bit over the top. Relax. We read too. Frankie Goes to Hollywood198.23.5.73 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea how the last four posts relate to the topic, and because of my confusion I thought I'd point out that it's inappropriate, and some of it is bullying. I guess making people aware of the rules is threatening. I'm not logged in, my computer sucks. I have an account and I'm not being anonymous, either. Allex Spires65.60.141.101 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude... it cuts both ways. You're a talkative guy and adding to the fluff. Take it easy, take it easy. Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy. The Eagles 198.23.5.73 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay, we should just end this. I think everyone is in agreement that we can't add speculation without references due to the WP:NOR policy, and all that we're doing now is arguing semantics and running off-topic. No Johnny Mnemonic references in the article, no personal attacks from anyone, please keep it calm and let's all go back to arguing about other minutiae (iPhone photos, prices in the article, criticism sections...). -- Atama^chat 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

lead image (again)

I love the new lead image, but for the fact that its months and months out of date. :/

I actually uploaded a replacement Image:IPhone_Black_BG.JPG on 21 June, but the thumbnail on the article page never updated.

I'm not opposed to leaving the new image that is currently there on the page, but a more recent one would be preferable, I think.

– ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a nice shot. The current one is a little crisper in the focus, but I like your composition better. One tweak - you might want to crop it a bit closer so the black border is smaller. Also, hate to suggest, but any chance you can take it again, but see if you can control the focus a bit better? More light might do it: smaller aperture means greater depth of field. An alternative is to shoot it from farther away with a longer lens if you want to keep it darker around. Might require different, remote, flashes. Mattnad (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh I really like that picture Frijole. -- Atama^chat 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to get it redone soon. I've only got a little Canon point-and-shoot, so I'm fairly limited to the built-in flash and no real control over the aperture :/ – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus phone

The page Jesus phone redirects to this article, but the article no where explains why. It doesn't even provide information in the introductory notes, that the phone is also sometimes referred to as the Jesus phone. A little etymology should be inserted and when that is done a note made in the introduction. --Hebster (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

...that, or the redirect should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed before on this talk page (check the archives.) Many electronic devices have nicknames. But I think nicknames like this, especially a non-Apple nickname, is more along the line of trivia than encyclopedic. Nicknames are not synonymous with "also known as" or AKA, as nicknames tend to be used more as expressions of affection (or something negative or in protest) for the device, while AKAs are less affectionate. If the information added context to any of the existing sections, then it would be good to add it into the article. For example, if the editor is attempting to introduce a proven fact the iPhone is extremely hyped, and the origin of Jesus phone was given as a form of protest, then maybe the nickname can be introduced. Another thing is that adding one nickname would set a precedence that we all might not want later on. I can see something like the iPhone having dozens of nicknames - and I don't think it is encyclopedic to cover every single one of them regardless of how widespread each nickname is used, as this would lead to fancruft. Groink (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

At the previous discussion the redirect was removed (as also seen in the jesus phone history), but it was reverted shortly after (perhaps because of the summary?). I still think that the redirect should be removed entirely or at least - if the explanation is more weighty than "AFAIK, it all started with Jesus Diaz at Gizmodo" - have an explanation. As it is now it makes no sense. On a side note: It has also been debated for speedy deletion in June 2007, with the result being it should be speedy deleted. On a side-side note: I actually did notice the former discussion. Would it have been more "right" to have re-opened that, instead of just starting a new one (as i did)? --Hebster (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus that "Jesus phone" is a misplaced or otherwise ill-advised redirect I will nominate it for deletion shortly. JBsupreme (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the page should be removed entirely instead of just "Mahjongg way" :) --Hebster (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that notion, just nuke the silly thing. -- Atama^chat 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done I nuked the page as it had been deleted twice before. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

I think this article in its current state looks like a very long advertisement for the iPhone (NB. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#ADVERTISING). The criticisms and shortcomings of the device are hardly mentioned, and sprinkled around the article in a manner that one would need to spend half an hour reading through the article in order to establish what is not good about the phone. Interestingly, the good features of the phone are nicely laid out in a table on the right hand side, taking the reader a minute to go through them. The article even talks about the non-replaceable battery as if it was a nice little feature, rather than an annoyance intended to have the customer switch to a newer model after couple of years. Can't anything be done about this? 88.112.61.122 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ above. The "sprinkling around" of the shortcomings is the preferred way to have criticisms in any Wikipedia article. The table on the right hand side doesn't have the "good features", those are just raw specifications for the phone which is standard for pretty much every tech article. As for your criticism about the battery, it doesn't even hint that the non-replacable battery is a "nice little feature" and even mentions the complaints sent to Apple and AT&T from a consumer advocacy group. It can't get more balanced than that. -- Atama^chat 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly talking about the style in which the article is written, and the mere fact that it's longer and more, let's say, poetic, than any other phone article I've found on Wikipedia (despite the market share being well below 1%). If you look at the talk about the phone's screen, it uses words such as "enables", "is accomplished" and has a pretty little comparison of a playing card to the phone's zoom function, too. I believe this advertisement-like style of writing is also what has prompted many people to try making a criticisms-section. There's a lot of useless information that belongs in a user manual or an advertisement and not in an encyclopedia. For example: "a playing song fades out when the user receives a call. Once the call is ended the music fades back in". I thought every modern phone does this? Why is this mentioned? 88.112.61.122 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The info about the "fading song" is a good point. There is certainly stuff that can be trimmed. Anything like that should be addressed and gotten rid of. I think the reason why there is so much info in this article is not because of an attempt to advertise, but because the phone gets so much media attention. That leads to 2 things: increased interest in the device and attention for this article, and also a lot of easily-verifiable information on the Web. It has also received an equal amount of harmful attention as well, which is why it needs to be locked against anonymous contributions (otherwise it turns into vandal city again).

I deleted the "fading song" info, but I'm wondering what would be a more neutral approach to some of your other examples. I'd encourage you to register a Wikipedia account if you can because you have some good suggestions and you could help quite a bit if you weren't posting anonymously. -- Atama^chat 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one of wikipedia's big issues. The articles are basically media driven; the more media attention something gets, the longer the article becomes. No wonder there is very little information on many science and engineering related topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.182.134.93 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do already have an account, I just forgot to log on. I'll look through the article removing the most obvious useless points. It'd be good if a number of people went through some sections; I'll leave in the bits that can be more controversial for now - maybe I should list some here for discussion at some point in time? HJV (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Screen and interface" section may need some heavy work on it, as it seems there's a lot of irrelevant info there. I left it in, though, for now, to not make too radical changes... HJV (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G regional overview - 11th July launch

For the moment this is just a draft, perhaps when it is finished it can be included in the main article? This is the pricing for individual customers. Corporate pricing can vary. Sometimes the iPhone is offered at different prices depending on which monthly plan you choose.

Region	Provider	Currency	Contract price Sim locked	Contract price Sim lock free	Contract free Sim locked	Contract free Sim lock free
Australia		AUD ($)
Austria	T-Mobile	Euro (€)	8GB - € 299 / 229 / 149 / 99 16GB - € 379 / 319 / 229 / 179			8GB - € 1499 16GB - € 1499
Belgium	Mobistar	Euro (€)				8GB - € 525 16GB - € 615
Canada	Rogers	CAD ($)	8GB - $ 199.99 16GB - $ 299.99
Denmark		DKK (Kr)
Finland		Euro (€)
France	Orange	Euro (€)	8GB - € 149 16GB - € 199		8GB - € 509 16GB - € 609	8GB - € 609 16GB - € 709
Germany	T-Mobile	Euro (€)	8GB - € 169.95 / 59.95 / 1 16GB - € 249.95 / 149.95 / 39.95 / 19.95
Hong Kong		HKD ($)
Ireland	O2	Euro (€)	8GB - € 169 / 99 / 49 16GB - € 229 / 169 / 129
Italy	TIM	Euro (€)	8GB - € 199 / 189 / 149 / 99 / 0 16GB - € 269 / 259 / 219 / 169 / 69
Italy	Vodafone	Euro (€)				8GB - € 499 16GB - € 569
Japan		JPY (¥)
Mexico		MXN ($)
Netherlands	T-Mobile	Euro (€)	8GB - € 79.95 / 1 16GB - € 159.95 / 79.95 / 19.95
New Zealand		NZD ($)
Norway		NOK (Kr)
Portugal		Euro (€)
Spain		Euro (€)
Sweden		SEK (Kr)
Switzerland	Orange	CHF (Fr)	8GB - Fr 349 / 299 / 249 / 199 / 149 / 99 16GB - Fr 399 / 349 / 299 / 249 / 199 / 149			8GB - Fr 759 16GB - Fr 899
Switzerland	Swisscom	CHF (Fr)	8GB - Fr 249 / 199 / 99 16GB - Fr 349 / 299 / 199		8GB - Fr 519 16GB - Fr 619
United Kingdom	O2	GBP (£)	8GB - £ 99 / 0 16GB - £ 159 / 59 / 0
United States	AT&T	USD ($)	8GB - $ 199 16GB $ 299

A couple of things are not 100% clear to me

• is the contract price with TIM in Italy for a locked or unlocked phone?
• It seems that the contract free option with Swisscom is SIM locked, can anyone validate?
• is the contract free option with Orange in Switzerland for a locked or unlocked phone (I assumed unlocked due to price)?

This is not the kind of information we want in this or any other Wikipedia article. See WP:NOTDIR, item 4. Wikipedia isn't a sales catalog, and adding that info does make this article look more like an advertisement. -- Atama^chat 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

what do you think of the iPhone?

its cooooool its wierd i like it