Talk:IPod Touch

Specifications inconsistant

"CPU: Initially ARM 400 MHz, but now 412 MHz for 1st generation, 532 MHz[4][39] and PowerVR SGX GPU 535 @ 200 MHz for 3rd/4th generation (Pushes 28 million polys/sec at peak)"

This makes no sense, the first two things listed are CPU's, the next things listed are GPU's. The third generation one should list the Cortex A8 at 600MHz, and the fourth generation one should list the Cortex A8 based Apple A4 chip at undisclosed frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.226.247 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Also can I add to the previous users comment, in the description to the side Ipod 2nd Gen info, CPU section, it lists "2nd generation: ARM11 620 MHz (underclocked to 533 MHz),[4] without internal ARM7 core for Jazelle acceleration" And then further down the page it states(Under Specifications) "620 MHz (underclocked to 533 MHz) Samsung ARM11 core with internal ARM7 core for Jazelle acceleration[4]"

Just thought I'd point that out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.148.82 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

iPod 3rd Gen 8GB

There IS a 8GB iPod Touch as i own one but in your article it does NOT say anything about the 8GB 3G iTouch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.37.34 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've revisited this issue myself. My previous confusion, months ago, ended with "The media caused confusion about the existence of a 3rd gen 8gb touch."

After seeing this page on Oct. 12: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/ipod/ipod_touch?mco=MTkyMTYwNjY I assumed that somebody at Apple simply got mixed into the confusion. (The page shows refurbished touches for sale, and lists a "2nd gen" touch and a "previous gen" touch as different items. Same specs, same discount price, but different discount (suggesting a different non-discounted price.))

However, it's been suggested to me that there is in fact a 3rd gen 8gb touch. The only difference is the model number in the tiny small print on the back of the device. "the 2nd gen is FB528LL/A. the 3rd gen is FC086LL/A." I haven't researched this further and have no sources but perhaps somebody can confirm? It seems to me these model numbers are refurb model specific since my non-refurb model says A1288. Can anyone confirm refurb model numbers? Perhaps some newer refurbs are getting hardware changes?

In the end, it probably doesn't matter to consumers if they are functionally identical, but in my opinion this adds confusion to the buying process considering Apple doesn't list important specs such as cpu or ram for any model.

To rant just a bit more, before the 4th gen came out, Apple listed the 8gb model on the refurb store as "Current generation" instead of "2nd generation", which also added to the confusion. (Was it the current generation of "the 8gb model"? ie the 2nd gen? Or was it suggesting it was a 3rd gen 8gb touch?) No doubt the "current gen" label helps sales...

If there is an 8gb 3rd gen touch with no difference to the 2nd gen touch, other than the model number, (even if this is the case only with the refurb models), perhaps it should be listed on Wikipedia as such, for completeness.

Cleanerimf (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick update: looks like the model number shown in the Settings app under General -> About is different between 2nd and 3rd gen 8gb devices. My (apparently 3rd gen) 8gb touch says "MC086LL". I assume a 2g model returns "MC528LL". So it seems like we have a (very minor) distinction for an iPod Touch model not currently listed on Wikipedia (even though it seems to be functionally identical to the 2g touch.) I'm also assuming the refurb models return slightly different model numbers but cannot confirm.

Cleanerimf (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

iTouch name in article

This was added to the article earlier and I've found 3 reliable sources showing it, the NZ Herald article is explicit. Though as its in the FAQ its controversial, can it be discussed in this thread if anyone objects to it now? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me the sources? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mac-planet/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502175&objectid=10595780&pnum=2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/oct/16/dungeon-hunter-iphone-game-review and http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/itouch/

The NZ Herald one is explicit, but the other two clearly mix the use of both terms. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed from the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

the sources may use the term, but they don't explain the usage. You are inserting a fact (that people sometimes colloquially use the name iTouch) into this article based on original research not backed up by these sources. riffic (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

okay it looks like the NZ Herald author says he "can't count how many times I have heard ‘iTouch' for iPod touch." It's a tenuous reference, and I don't think it carries enough weight to be placed into the lede paragraph. At best the only fact you can derive from this is this one author has heard people call the device an iTouch. riffic (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The other two references clearly use the term interchangeably with iPod touch and "can't count how many times I have heard 'iTouch' for iPod touch" is pretty clear that the term is in widespread use. PS I've reverted your removal of the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not debating the usage of the term by these sources, but these sources do not explicitly indicate why, who, or how the 'iTouch' moniker is colloquially used. You are generating a fact based on your own observation, not one that can be backed up by these sources. Revert your changes because original research is not allowed under policy. riffic (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty blatantly obvious that the statement in the article is correct (I mean look at the Google suggestions for itouch for starters). And I've given 3 reliable sources showing the term being used interchangeably with iPod touch as well, so what else would I have to do to meet your sourcing requirements? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if the statements in these articles are correct, it is not our place to determine factual accuracy. We do not invent facts here, facts must come from a secondary source. riffic (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No facts are being invented, two of the sources explicitly use both terms interchangeably, and the third states that the term is in widespread use - Steve himself even uses it :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A source's usage of the term 'iTouch' is not in dispute. The fact which is in dispute is this: "sometimes colloquially called the iTouch." Simply using the term in an article, or title, is not enough to explain where this fact came from. Did this fact simply come out of thin air? The NZ Herald reference gets us an inch closer to an explanation, but does not provide enough evidence that this term is 'colloquially used', except around the author's segment of acquaintances. riffic (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"sometimes referred to as"? Surely this simpler claim is supported by the sources? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Tenuously supported by one source, I'll be willing to concede the NZ Herald reference supports it (but lacks evidence of usage by who/what/when/where/how/why), but the other references do not, and drawing your own conclusion based on their usage of the term (without a statement of fact) is synthesis. riffic (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept Cybercobra's compromise of changing it to "sometimes referred to as the iTouch" as that is more clearly supported by the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Source. There is only one source so far that can support this claimed fact. riffic (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the other two are some of the worlds most respected news sources in the world who are clearly referring to the iPod touch as an iTouch. Surely that is enough for what is really such an obvious point? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

not really, because it's synthesis of a new fact. I'd like to see these two sources struck from the article, because these two sources do not explicitly support the fact in question. riffic (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The notion that the term is "sometimes" used is being derived as an observation from the combination of the sources, while none of them explicitly says it. The NZ editor saying he's personally heard it a lot is not a statement that the term is used beyond the people he may be referring to. And that is not Jobs' site', clearly; it's called "fakesteve.net". That may be construed as a bad faith addition to the discussion. ArtistScientist (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

@ArtistScientist, I thought the :p made it clear that my comment that Fake Steve was real Steve was a joke - but Fake Steve aka Dan Lyons is another well known person using the term iTouch. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the difficultly for finding more sources on the use of iTouch as a synonym for iPod Touch is so obvious that reporting on it is like reporting that water is wet so it isn't very exciting. Therefore the only other source I can think of is Urbandictionary, but I'm sure that will be objected to as well. - That said if you guys want the removal of the Guardian or New York Times I'm happy for that to be done as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

That's right; Urban Dictionary is user-generated and not acceptable as a source. Even "water is wet" needs a source. Regardless of whether it's true or not, the relationship between the claim and the truth is not relevant, only the relationship between the claim and acceptable evidence. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically it doesn't matter what we think, only what reliable sources explicitly say. So far there's only that one NZ source, and the meaning of what it says doesn't indisputably translate into what was in the article. If it was accurate, the article would merely say "New Zealand Herald columnist Mark Webster has said that he has often heard the name iTouch used instead of iPod touch." As it is only Webster's personal hearsay it's not really worth including. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look and I can't find any other people saying "iTouch is in widespread use" though lots of people are using the term. May I ask why a whole bunch of reliable sources (here's another) using the term iTouch to refer to the iPod touch isn't enough to show the point? If you're going to quote WP:SYNTHESIS I'd like to understand in detail how it applies to this specific case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:Synth states that you can't combine sources to make a point. The fact must come from the source itself, not observations about what the sources amount to. ArtistScientist (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced, but I see where you're coming from. Does anyone else have an opinion? Or is it likely that I'm wrong for pursuing this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about including it, but I don't think it should be included right up in the lede sentence of the article. That seems to give the name iTouch a lot of importance, which it may not really have. I don't think it's synthesis to say that it's sometimes called iTouch, which is supported by sources. You just have to be careful not to estimate the frequency of iTouch mentions compared to total mentions of the product, unless you have a RS that explicitly does so. Putting it in the lede suggests it is very commonly called iTouch, which we don't know. Fletcher (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I only put it there as I couldn't think of anywhere else for it to go, but you have a very good point about it not being in the lede. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

Preventing the word "iTouch" from being mentioned in the article as a common nickname amounts to censorship of common usage, and Wikipedia is not censored. That the term is in common usage is beyond doubt; as of this writing, there are over 9,000,000 hits for "iTouch" on Google (see [1]) and over 200,000 hits on apple.com (the manufacturer's own website) alone (see [2]). Furthermore, User:Eraserhead1 has already found three mainstream media sources backing up its usage. —Lowellian (reply) 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious. About Google returning over 200,000 results for iTouch on Apple's site. Can you actually point to Apple using the word iTouch anywhere on their site? I can't. I see discussions where people use the word and app descriptions written by app developers that use the word, but couldn't find anything written by Apple. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lowellian - Can you point me out the sentence within the BMW article that mentions the word "beamer?" While you're at it, can you also point out the word "dubya" in the George W. Bush article? How about "Mickey D's" or "The Golden Arches" in the McDonald's article? Groink (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable media sources don't generally call a BMW a "beamer" or refer to Bush as "dubya", but they do refer to the iPod touch as an iTouch. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you assume that those MSM sources quoted earlier are reliable. They're not! They're blog entries. C'mon people! Blogs are not reliable sources! Don't mix up MSM articles with blog entries at MSM sites. Just because someone got a job at a MSM site to blog does not mean that every word written by the blogger carries the same weight as the site itself. Whenever a writer writes a piece in the first person, that should be a clear sign that the article was not written by a writer, but rather a blogger. Unlike articles that are reliable sources, blogs are not screened by the same process. Groink (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Riffic, blogs by the New York Times etc. are counted as reliable sources from WP:RS#News organizations "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My contention isn't with these sources being blogs, as I am actually of opinion that some blogs may, especially those run by notable news organizations, make decent sources. I am simply stating that none of the sources you've presented explain usage by who/what/when/where/why/how of your claimed fact, and to reach your conclusion based on observation of usage without any explanation from a reference is synthesis. In the future please be more careful about whose point you are replying to. riffic (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing this. No sources explicitly state in so-and-so terms the claimed fact of "people call this product x", and without a source stating this explicitly, you are drawing your own conclusions about usage, which is against policy riffic (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there! WP:SOURCES assumes that the MSM site hires "writers {who} are professional journalists or are professionals in the field." This is just so bad and so wrong! As a bad example of assuming bloggers are experts, Meghan McCain of The Daily Beast is constantly wrong when it comes to her commentary on political matters. When qualifying a blogger under WP:SOURCES, the editor must do the due diligence that the blogger is indeed someone who is an expert on the subject at-hand. Again, bloggers are not screened by an editorial board like other non-blogging writers who write un-opinionated articles for the MSMs. Groink (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the writers for the Guardian and New York Times' tech blogs know what they are talking about - they are two of the most respected newspapers in the world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there are manual of style issues for using a nickname rather than a proper name for referencing a product in an encyclopedic article, but that mainly goes for your insistence of using 'itouch' in My Brute. riffic (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the reason this term isn't used in this article is because the claimed fact of "people sometimes call this product an itouch" is unverified, not directly backed by any sources. I invite you to find a source which can explicitly claim this fact, then it would be appropriate to re-add the information to the article. riffic (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, thinking about it a little more, given that Google searches for iTouch return results from Apple's site which only contain the words 'iPod touch' its pretty clear this is in widespread use and should be in the article per WP:IAR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:iar, the ultimate trump card of those whose arguments have no merit? The only thing this proves is that google automatically lengthens search queries for 'itouch' for both that and 'ipod touch'. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, go find a source. riffic (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my point about beamer, dubya, etc. There must be a reliable source that directly - I repeat DIRECTLY indicates that the said nickname is commonly used. This is why you don't see these and many other nicknames mentioned in the articles. It is extremely rare for a reliable resource to actually make a statement about a nickname being commonly used for a product, person, etc. As Riffic mentioned time and time again, if you attempt to take multiple sources like Google and the thousands of articles that mention the nickname, and then attempt to quantify the results and come up with what you feel is an accurate statement, then that practice is 100-percent primary source, original research violations. You can do this sort of thing when writing a research paper for school. You cannot do this on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What like the New Zealand Herald source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the paragraph you so much want to claim as a reliable source, etc.: "Although with Apple's much simpler schemes, people still get it so wrong. I can't count how many times I have heard ‘iTouch' for iPod touch, or even the anachronistically just-plain-wrong ‘iBook Pro'! I have also seen spellings like ‘Iphone'." I don't see anything in this article that points out what Riffic has been asking for. Matter of fact, the blogger (yes, blogger) says in this paragraph that calling it "iTouch" is WRONG! How awful can this source be? Groink (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a personal observation to explain: "Can you actually point to Apple using the word iTouch anywhere on their site? I can't." It is my understanding the Apple is extremely annoyed by the term “iTouch”, being a bastardization of the trademarked name of their product, “iPod touch”. Thus, you will never see that word used in any correspondence from Apple. The term originated, I believe, from the fact that some owners felt “iPod touch” was too wordy and pretentious, and wanted something more succinct and friendly, to match “iPhone”. CRobClark (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Just to remind you all it was ME that added the line that "the iPod Touch is sometimes colloquially referred to as the iTouch could generate so much controversy. I can see that it was removed from the article sometime ago, but I will refrain from reinstating it as I don't want to get into an edit war. If someone else wants to put it back, all well and good. Ah well, talk about a difference of opinion. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a word with Eraserhead1 about the iTouch name being in the article and he thinks it should be in it, but advised me to discuss it here first. I also feel the iTouch name should be in the article, but not placed right near the start of it, but somewhere within the main body of it, and it will be worded to something like "The iPod Touch is sometimes incorrectly called the iTouch". I have googled the iTouch name and it indeed crops up in several sites. I do not want to get into a flame war over the iTouch name, but I stand by my feelings that it should be in the article. However I will still refrain from adding the iTouch name until I see a reply to this message. If I don't get a reply then I will consider re-adding it as described above. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to find a source that directly says something like "People sometimes call the iPod touch an 'iTouch'"? riffic (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have typed the word 'iTouch' into Google and several searches come up with the iTouch name in it. I am not going to list each and every search that includes 'iTouch' but I can confirm there are several of them. I still feel it should be included in the article. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

that is not what I asked you. please familiarize yourself with policies on verifiability and original research; all facts must be directly supported by a source. Feel free to start a request for comment if you feel that your feelings trump policy, I am very curious to see what others have to say regarding the issue. riffic (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I NEVER said that my feelings trump policy thank you. I have decided to pull out of this argument as I don't want to feel im wasting my time over a mere name for the iPod Touch. Thank you. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to chime in an old argument, the least you could do is read up on the previous arguments. You're like the 12th or so person to bring up the ideology that Google searches is a source. Per WP:GOOGLE, search engines is NOT a viable method of proving any kind of a point on Wikipedia. "Search engines are sophisticated research tools, but often have bias and results that need to be interpreted. It can be worked around, but you need to know what you're doing." I've made this argument time and time again - the only thing search engines prove is that a given term is popular. Popularity rarely defines nobility - and most certainly it does not define a reliable source. As Riffic has been trying to point out in every argument regarding iTouch, and as the Wikipedia guideline states, "Search engines cannot guarantee the results are reliable or 'true' (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false)." As one of the sources earlier indicated, the use of the term "iTouch" is in fact incorrect. Groink (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Given. http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Sues-Apple-for-Patent-Infringement-344d.aspx and http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/06/motorola-files-suit-against-apple-for-patent-infringement/ is there enough information for iTouch to be included? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to say "Motorola incorrectly referred to the iPod Touch as iTouch in a lawsuit" then yeah you've got a good source. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The macrumors article is enough to substantiate usage in a Motorola press release but doesn't explain usage by others. The one specific fact that you can derive from these two sources would be that Motorola's press release referred to the device as an iTouch. I have no specific objections for using these two sources for that. riffic (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What happens when you search wikipedia for iTouch? Case and point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.177.242 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry I don't see your point. Please try to make one. riffic (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY people I know that refer to it as an iTouch are annoying people that try to one up other owners by being lazy and calling it an iTouch. People don't call it the iNano or the iClassic. There is no reason that you can't merely refer to it as a touch, or, heaven forbid, and iPod touch. That is what it is. DanielDPeterson (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is waaaaay too long for me, but I'll just jump in and say, is it possible to summarize this argument in the article? If not, then there are probably insufficient reliable sources. If yes, do so. I vote to continue to keep the name iTouch out of the first sentence, which is very easy to jam-pack to awkwardness. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GB vs GiB (Flash memory)

Apple's website mentions that iPhone (and iPod touch) has xxGB, but there is a footnote: "1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less."
So shall we write real specifications instead of what marketeers said?
Artemka373 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rear camera: .7 vs. .93 MP

It has surfaced on a hacker website that the iPod touch camera can be hacked to use it's full capabilities and add .23 MP to images. My question: one, is the source reliable, and two, do we state nominal or actual tech specs? Most users, including (as far as I can tell) anyone unwilling to jailbreak their device, will not use this hack. So do I revert the anonymous changes to .93 MP? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

title of article

according to apple, the correct name is iPod touch Any comments? --128.107.239.233 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Though it is marketed as the iPod touch, we choose to use the name the general public uses. Marcus Qwertyus 13:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But shouldn't we use the correct name? Just because the general public uses that doesn't mean it should be used encyclopaedically. It can/should be mentioned as a common variant, though. For example, Infectious mononucleosis isn't referred to as Kissing Disease in the article, in fact, almost all of the medical terms in Wikipedia are named by that term, rather than the common version of the name. (Just some thoughts) Iamstupido (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Infectious mononucleosis" is more common than "kissing disease" on Google books. I guess someone could make the argument that "Mono" should be the title of the article. I'm not actually sure the capitalized version of iPod Touch is more common. I think there is a way to filter out search results by capitalization but I forgot how. Marcus Qwertyus 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because people call it an iTouch doesn't mean the title is iTouch. I truly think it should be moved over the redirect. --Cole Johnson (talk) (site) 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

iTouch is an invalid name.

Replace all instances of it in the article and avoid it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.78.55 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... wha... wha... Huh??? Groink (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What is meant?

In the fourth paragraph of the introductory section this is said: "It also contains Apple's A4 for faster processing, a microphone for communication, voice recognition, and voice memos, which can be useful for recording things, such as an academic tutorial, a voice lesson, or a college lecture, (for the space in the iTouch 4g has stronger than most iPod nanos and therefore can hold clearer audio recordings) and a three-axis gyroscopic sensor which enables the device to recognize approximately how far, fast, and in which direction it has moved in space."

Firstly, I believe it is incorrectly formatted with the comma then brackets then an "and": there shouldn't be the comma. Secondly, it doesn't make sense: "the space ... has stronger", etc. Thirdly, the term iTouch is used which is, as previously mentioned, incorrect.

Iamstupido (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I removed the entire sentence. It wasn't cited anyway. Groink (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we have fair use photographs that includes the interface?

In the past, there has been a coalition of editors who wanted to prevent any shots of the iPod touch that include any images of the interface. The argument was that, while it would be fine under US fair use, if for some reason the article were to be published on a CD for export to countries that are not governed by US copyright, the interface would not be allowed.

Now that this article has degraded to B / C quality, I would expect that it's unlikely to be part of a CD version of Wikipedia any time soon. Other Apple articles like the IPhone show the interface under fair use. I for one think that the iPod touch article would benefit from more detail on what the interface looks like (under fair use of course). Mattnad (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't personally care about fair-use images, I think they can be useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I support having one for the infobox. The thumbnails are too tiny to be worth a fair use claim. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Chart

Why does the chart read "16, 32 and 64 GB" for the 3rd generation? Shouldn't it include the 8GB model? I am going to change it to "8, 32, and 64". If you need proof, see this video: http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/apple-ipod-touch-third/4505-6490_7-33770781.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.249.85 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm down --Cole Johnson (talk) (site) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why no model number/numbers?

When looking at my ipod touch 3g, I am unable to find anything directly identifying it as a 3g. In the general settings 'about' display, the model is identified as MC008LL. I was surprised that the wikipedia article never mentions this fact, or clarifies if any other models might be included in the 3g category. I verified that this ipod is a 3g by googling MC008LL. I would edit the article to add this, but I don't know enough about it to make a reliable change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.235.107 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Under guideline WP:NOTCATALOG, things like prices and model numbers are considered trivia items. Groink (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Name change

On Apple's website, it calls it the iPod touch, with a lowercase letter t. I suggest changing the article name to iPod touch, to match official nomenclature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt473 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOSTM. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 sales numbers

According to Apple's recent filing they have sold 60 million iPod touches as of March 2011. Here are the sources:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/19/apples_samsung_lawsuit_notes_over_60_million_ipod_touch_sold.html http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

I can't update the number since the article is locked, can anyone please put these in? Thanks --112.203.109.94 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... -- seriously? riffic (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd gen pictures exactly the same.

In the "Models" section, the pictures of the iPod touch 2nd and 3rd generations are the same picture twice.