Talk:IPhone

False Advertising Ruling in the UK

Why is there no coverage of the False Advertising Ruling from the UK?

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=false+advertising+uk+iphone&go=&form=QBLH

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/iPhone-ad-UK-ASA,news-29046.html

"UK iPhone Ad Banned for False Advertising"

"The Authority banned the ad following complaints that it allowed users to fully browse the web with access to “all parts of the Internet,” despite that fact that the handset does not support Java or Flash. The 30 second advertisement includes a voice-over detailing what “parts” of the net you might need, finishing up with the claim that the iPhone has it all."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.233 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason there is no coverage of the False Advertising Ruling from the UK is that the editors and normal contributors to this topic keep it clean of any news that puts apple in a bad light. they are apple apologists. they whitewash bad news about apple to make is seem better. they hide bad information about apple. by disbursing it to various parts of the topic and to other topics. Danalpha31 (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Danalpha31 previously attempted to insert MobileMe problems into the iPhone article, even though the problems had nothing to do with the iPhone itself. Anyone who disagrees with his opinion is an "apologist". In truth the article is filled with various drawbacks of the device.

To get back to the original topic... There's really no place for the information in this article, but the History of the iPhone article has a section on advertising. I think that would be a good place for it. -- Atama^chat 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the information. So much for "whitewashing". -- Atama^chat 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, i wonder why it wasn't added before. cnn even covered it. just not the people here. Danalpha31 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I never got around to it? -- Atama^chat 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

awww :( what about everyone else!!!! Danalpha31 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i wonder if yall would have ever added it on your own. hmmm Danalpha31 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

this is supposed to be one of the good articles. HA!!!! Danalpha31 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone else, but I will say that this article has gotten far less attention in the last few months. This was a very active article, for good and for bad, and now I barely see anything more than a minor change made to it. I think it's possibly because the device is no longer a fad. If a new version of the iPhone is released it might pick up again. -- Atama^chat 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... You know, apparently this information is already in the iPhone article. In fact, it has been there for a long time, since December 3, 2008. Again, there's no "whitewashing" going on, such arguments are completely ridiculous. -- Atama^chat 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfc: Should this content be included?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{RFCsci| section=Rfc: Should this content be included? !! reason=Editor claims an impartial judge will agree that he is not disregarding any Wikipedia policies or guidelines with the inclusion of material two other established editors disagree with. !! time= 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) }}nowiki tags added at close to remove from category but leave reason visible. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

iphone and itunes IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WIN XP 64 bit VISTA 64 is now supported. I am an Iphone technical support rep with Apple this info can be confirmed at apple.com/itunes or apple.com/iphone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewcheddarmurphy (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The iTunes page doesn't specifically state that Windows XP 64-bit is unsupported, and a number of sources within this Wikipedia article contradict what you're claiming. Unless you can give us a reliable source that shows that it isn't supported there's no reason to consider change the article. Anyone can claim to be a tech support rep. -- Atama^chat 23:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

picky, picky, picky. you should know if apple doesn't say they support it, it's UNSUPPORTED. Danalpha31 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that we have reliable sources saying that it is supported. The way Wikipedia works is that you find published sources that are considered reliable, and you reference them so that you can back up what you're saying with facts rather than putting in opinions, rumors, or guesses. -- Atama^chat 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

but what does apple say Danalpha31 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

so now you can rely on your reliable sources. when before yall removed things you knew were true Danalpha31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Your idea of what a reliable source is does not match what is outlined at WP:RS. If you care about making a positive change at Wikipedia rather than ranting about your dislike for other editors, please familiarize yourself with some of the most basic policies and guidelines. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:N are all something you need to learn and follow if you want to contribute meaningfully to the project. -- Atama^chat 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

then don't misuse the wikipedia policies to remove things you know are true Danalpha31 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Very first line of the first policy I linked for you. Please read them. -- Atama^chat 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To give a perfect example of the difference, I know that you've complained about Safari crashing your iPhone frequently. I experienced the same thing. It was one of the reasons why I eventually gave up my iPhone. The problem is, it doesn't seem to be a widespread problem, which made it difficult (well, impossible) to fix and also makes it unverifiable. So I would never put anything in this article about Safari being unstable on the iPhone, even though my direct experience says that it is. That's original research which isn't allowed. There are other gripes I have with the phone, which are again unverifiable, and so I don't include them. I also don't change anything in this article or any other article to reflect my opinion. That's how Wikipedia stays neutral (or tries to) and how it stands up to challenges about accuracy. -- Atama^chat 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Atama most certainly has the right idea here. It's clear that he understands what Wikipedia is and does. I support your reasoning wholeheartedly, and propose to Danalpha31 to please read the aforementioned links that Atama has provided. This will help him get his bearing here. Brianreading (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

there are or will be news sources that discuss and explain the safari crash problem. the question is will the normal editors and contributors put that information in this topic. like i said before, it's just a matter of time. Danalpha31 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that time will come (I personally don't believe that's the case), then it should be simple for you to add proper reliable, secondary sources and add this content yourself. You have most of the same power as any established editor here. However, you should be aware that the spirit of Wikipedia is about consensus. Just because you feel that something should be included or removed, does not mean that is the general consensus. As I mentioned earlier, I truly hope you read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as they will be an invaluable tool for you here. Brianreading (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The test is are the normal editors and contributors going to add it or just whitewash. Danalpha31 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you not a "normal editor and contributor"? If not, there's nothing stopping you. Did you just come here to troll? Brianreading (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've only tried to add one paragraph. That is not a normal contributor to this topic. THIS IS THE DISCUSSION PAGE, NOT THE TOPIC. Danalpha31 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What Brianreading was getting at, I believe, is that if you really care at all about the content of this article you could contribute to it as much as any "normal editor". As long as your edits follow basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines then there shouldn't be any concern about your changes being reverted. It's very hypocritical of you to complain about people not improving the article (for example, when you complained above about nobody adding information about the false advertising lawsuit in the UK). If you don't have any interest in contributing to the encyclopedia, why are you here? -- Atama^chat 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

to see what kind of people are editing this page. to make sure yall are including relevant and important information Danalpha31 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

the same reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.233 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) wrote on the discussion page Why is there no coverage of the False Advertising Ruling from the UK? Danalpha31 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. You add the information. You don't watch to see if other people do. And the anonymous IP actually was justified; as an anonymous IP they can't edit this article (it is semiprotected against vandalism because it has been a big target). So instead they posted some information, included a reference for it. You on the other hand are now an established, registered user, and can edit it however you want. Yet you've done nothing but try to add MobileMe problems to the article (despite the fact that there is already a MobileMe article which explains the problems with the service at length), then complained about it being removed, and then kept up a diatribe against Wikipedia ever since. The anonymous IP contributed far more than you've ever done. I'd encourage you, since you've gone through the trouble to register and everything, to go ahead and do something other than complain all the time. Another editor who actually edits is always welcome (as long as they aren't disruptive). -- Atama^chat 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

without me the mobileme problem would not exist in wikipedia. without me the 3g chipset problem on release of the iphone 3g would not exist in wikipedia. without me yall would ignore the safari browser crash problem Danalpha31 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I've ever had this much trouble staying civil in Wikipedia before. Danalpha31, you are so badly misinformed and have such an inflated sense of the worth of your limited contribution to the encyclopedia it's difficult to respond in a proper manner. The problems with MobileMe that you were trying to insert into the article in December of 2008 happened months earlier. If you had bothered to check the MobileMe article before wrongly trying to shoehorn that information into this article, you'd have seen that the problems were already written about on MobileMe's article, in detail, long before, in fact they were included in the article at about the same time that they happened. You claim repeatedly that Wikipedia is full of "Apple apologists" who try to "whitewash". In reality, the problems with MobileMe have been documented on Wikipedia long before you even showed up and in better detail than in your attempts. The 3G chipset problem was also discussed long before you appeared on Wikipedia. Not only do we show the problems with the iPhone and other Apple products, we're better at it than you are. If you view your role as some kind of "watchdog", don't bother, because your efforts have obviously failed. -- Atama^chat 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

thou dost protest too much. just look at the various iphone articles that summarize the iphone's problems. many of the mention the mobileme problem. they think it belongs with the iphone. why don't you? like i said, an impartial judge will rule in my favor Danalpha31 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

here's one news article that was on google news. http://www.crn.com/software/215801096 the author seems to think mobileme problems belong in an iphone article. i wonder why? Danalpha31 (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added this on the queue for Request for comment so an impartial editor can help with dispute resolution. That should help to fulfill your request for an "impartial judge". Brianreading (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The blog that Danalpha31 referenced (again, it's a blog) actually says the following:

"Last year, on the day it launched both iPhone 3G and its MobileMe service, Apple's infrastructure was so swamped that tens of thousands of customers were forced to wait through brutal phone activation delays via its iTunes store. MobileMe was so riddled with problems when it first launched that Apple decided to give customers an extra month on their subscriptions in an effort to placate the many who were angry or disappointed."

Even that blog entry differentiates between MobileMe and iPhone 3G, showing the problems betweeen the two as being separate. The blog is talking about Apple in general (in fact, the blog entry is titled "Apple is Delaying Developers; Does a Bigger Problem Exist?"). It's not an "iPhone article". Danalpha31 can't seem to grasp that MobileMe and the iPhone are different products, even though MobileMe was released on the same day the iPhone 3G was. -- Atama^chat 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Danalpha31 still does not respect that distinction ("cannot grasp", or more likely, ignores). You may remember this dispute from late 2008. I suggest that you stop wasting your time--both of you.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I sure do remember it. Well, I guess arguing the point is somewhat pointless. I always like to keep up hope that an editor will come around to be helpful to the project but I think you're right that it's useless. -- Atama^chat 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Base on this talk, the initial claim has not been verified by a reliable source, and also has not been verified by any published source altogether, so please stop talking. Thank you.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you guys are still discussing whether or not iTunes is supported on 64 bit Windows XP, but here is an Apple document that says it isn't: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1426 This is certainly a reliable source.--agr (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's the issue or issues; their talk at the beginning is highly confusing.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to this RfC, as an uninvolved editor, because of the listing at Template:RFCsci_list. The RfC was inadequately presented, with an incoherent discussion arguing wiki principles without specific foundation. That may have been due to an editor requesting RfC as a "shut up" move. Please do not waste the community's time requesting comment on a proposal you do not support. No specific text was asserted. It was claimed that usable source was removed from the article, but there was no reference to it. General principles were proclaimed as controlling that are not of universal application. (WP:V may be assumed to be universal, normally, WP:RS is more conditional, that's the difference between a policy and a guideline.) At the end, above, a reliable source is asserted for a certain statement, but the application to the existing text is unclear and, again, wasn't specified. However, the source may make the RfC moot, it seems to be founded on a lack of reliable source but an editor asserting personal knowledge. I'm closing this RfC for these defects, without any conclusion, and without prejudice against further process or edits, and I'm removing the RfC tag. I'm doing this because, as it stands, the RfC just wastes the time of editors who look at it, and the present issue is unclear. If someone has a remaining issue, I suggest that they begin a new RfC, and take care to present the issues so that they are clear and specific, and avoid tendentious back-and-forth debate in the RfC. Presumably, before an RfC is set up, the issues have been discussed already and positions should be as clear as possible. If not, please don't set up an RfC until dispute resolution has been followed and failed to find consensus with less outside involvement. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Also Known As

The iPhone is also known as the "Jesus Phone" in some of the online world. Sites using this phrase frequently include The Register (www.theregister.co.uk) and www.gizmondo.com.

Specific examples are: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/macworld2007/exclusive-apple-iphone-360-degree-gallery-50-photos-of-the-jesus-phone-227486.php http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/24/iphone_security_vulnerability/

The Economist, msnbc and other sites acknowledge this is a term that is used in the online world : http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9443542 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19297486/

An online (blogging) site has even made a satirical video due to the name : http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/08/3-weeks-until-the-iphone-goes-on-sale/

The online world's use of "Jesus Phone" should be included somewhere in the article - the article seems to be protected. 86.164.181.80 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, those are clearly some notable sources using the term. However, notice that each one is about 2 years old. I'd never heard of the term despite being a long-time iPhone user (and contributor to this article). Obviously the term fell out of usage quickly. It might be worthy to put a brief blurb somewhere about it being called the "Jesus Phone" around launch. -- Atama^chat 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just quoted a couple of articles at random, The Register still uses the phrase consistently (here is one from this month: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/09/iphone_biometrics_harvesting/). I can't edit the article so can't add a brief mention I'm afraid.

86.164.181.80 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the Apple fanboys who control the editing of the article going to include this information - if not, why not?89.243.153.99 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apple fanboys", as you put it, do not control the editing of this article. It is under the control of every established editor on Wikipedia. Community members who wish to participate from producing a general consensus are not barred. Brianreading (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The name "Jesus Phone" is not an "also known as." Rather, it is more of a sarcastic gesture on the part of writers and others who despise the device for its popularity. Reading Barack Obama's article, I don't see any references to Jesus, The Messiah, "walking on water", "splitting the sea", etc. despite many people making these references. The reference to Jesus doesn't belong here because it is basically a reference made to make the iPhone look bad. It is sarcasm, and sarcasm doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Add iphone 'recycling initiatives' subheading

I would like to add a 'recycling initiatives' subheading to the iphone wikipedia page. Electronic waste is becoming a huge world-wide problem. Since Apple did not design its batteries to be replaceable, the iphone device itself is rather disposeable. This presents an e-waste problem. I would like the subheading to read as follows:

Since the battery inside the iphone and ipod is not easily replaceable, the devices are rather disposable and have created a large electronic waste problem. The contents of the iphone, such as the lithium battery, can be potentially toxic if not properly recycled. Recent initiatives have been taken to recycle and reuse both iphones and ipods. [1] www.Cashforiphones.com believes in the importance of recycling iphones and ipods. The website buys used or broken iphones and ipods in an initiative to prevent dangerous electronic waste from discarded electronic devices.

Electronicguru1 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a full section about the battery that details the replaceability of it. The rest of your edit would be against official Wikipedia policy to add on the grounds that it is an advertisement for an organization. As per What Wikipedia is not, "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. [...] Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." Make sense? Brianreading (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor has already spammed Laptop, Smartphone, and BlackBerry with advertisements for his site. If this article wasn't protected he would have spammed it also. -- Atama^chat 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see why my content got slapped down. I have a bunch more to add here from my expansion of computer recycling. I can add/reinsert this content without mentioning the third parties, but it seems like there is enough to make a spinout article as well. JJB 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as the article meets the notability requirements, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Brianreading (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)