Talk:iPhone

Cut down on the reference links

I know Wikipedia is being used for advertising, but this is ridiculous. 83.77.220.39 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think references are a good thing. Most of them are just news articles and Apple talks anyways. =) 69.108.92.112 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to plain external links, the more references the better. -- ReyBrujo 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the links to other touchscreen phones certainly don't belong in “See Also”; this would be better served by inclusion in appropriate categories (as has already been done). —Cygfrydd Llewellyn 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo1973

Why is there a "See Also" link to the Neo1973? The way it is posted seems like an advertisement. I suggest it be deleted on the grounds that

• It is not mentioned in the article, unlike the LG PRADA
• There is already a link to "List of Smartphones"
• If we let it stay, it would only be fair to add the other 100+ smartphones to the "See Also" section.

I am now deleting it, but suspect it will pop up again, and think if it does, there should be discussion. 71.213.13.173 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

i dare say that someone originally mentioned it, but it was deleted by apple fans. The Neo1973 is a Direct Competitor using the Linux operating system. This is a notable phone in this discussion as it is very similar to the iphone, but open source, unlike the locked iphone. this link SHOULD be but back in. 86.128.227.189 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Overkill

The phone will be released on June 29th "in the U.S. at 6 p.m 'local time,' meaning that the Eastern Time Zone will have the iPhone three hours before the Pacific." Hey, I'm just as excited as everyone else, but isn't this detail taking it a bit too far? —Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What can you expect from fans? :-D -- ReyBrujo 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean obsessive fanboys. PickledJesus 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter fans have been debating the 21 July 2007 debut of the final seventh installment down to the exact second when bookshops open around the world and called each others' mothers nasty names when they couldn't agree. Compared to that, the almost religious iPhone attitude is pretty normal, see:

http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/and062107blog.jpg

I would say anything about iPhone fans (or for that matter Mac fans) particularly normally. They're an odd bunch, that's for sure, even if HP fans are stranger. What's there to debate in the Harry Potter release anyway? I was under the impression it was being released at exactly the same time all over the world Nil Einne 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just hoping that the first time zone to get HP7 slathers spoilers all over the internet before the last time zone gets it. Maybe even calling the stores and telling the cashiers. Kingoomieiii 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release Date

Just a suggestion that the Australian release date is changed from 2008 to 2009 or 2008/2009, the recent news items in this country appearing due to the impending release in the US have revelase no Australian providers haven't even talked to Apple (It will probably be Telstra in the end though) and all the articles mentioned a pre 2009 release was unlikely.

I can't find a link at the moment to use as a source but other Aussies should be able to confirm this.

Update: Channel 9 News has just claimed it will be released in 6 months, around January... Not a direct comment from Apple though, perhaps leaving it at 2008 is best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeoRicen (talk • contribs).

There has been a lot of speculation Vodafone may due a deal which will cover many of their subsidiaries. Nil Einne 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Three is extremely interested in the phone. We so far the most likely Australian provider to have the iPhone. Telstra has already said no. Optus is sharing a fair bit of interest but doesn't seem so happy on Apple's conditions on web usage pricing. 124.168.28.42 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Weaknesses not mentioned

This iPhone has more weaknesses not mentioned.

- No 3G - No replaceable battery (my cell batteries half-life under 1yr) - No phone tethering to laptop - No expansion slot - No third party apps? - Virtual keyboard is questionable - No flash/java in browser - Camera Cannot Create Video At least is has Bluetooth 2.0, but it you can't tether to laptop, it's only good for stereo headphones.

First iPhone disassembly

MacNN has obtained disassembly photos of Apple's iPhone in an effort to better learn about the manufacturing process that Apple engineers settled on for the cellular handset. The photos were provided by iFixIt, which sells parts for most Apple products. MacNN obtained an iPhone just after the device launched earlier today, and has posted photos of the device as it was unpacked from the original packaging and turned on to await activation.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/06/29/first.iphone.disassembly/

Send/recieve music or files over bluetooth?

Can someone please check to see if it's possible to send and recieve files (music, videos etc) using bluetooth? 90.224.152.178/HSB 2007-06-29

I quickly skimmed thru the official iphone manual and it says nothing about using bluetooth to transfer files to or from other bluetooth enabled devices. Am I the only you who thinks this is a _major_ drawback?

yes this would be a massive disadvantage for the consumer. However, i think that apple have purposefully not included this, as otherwise people would be sharing music and videos which would then sap money from itunes. I think this should be mentioned in the article. 86.128.227.189 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC) - Careful before slating Apple for this, don't forget most iTunes music is DRM protected at the moment - you may find it's a network restriction which may not be applied on other networks. Phooto 13:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) and checking the manual, it's an AT&T specific manual, so may well be different on other networks. Phooto 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of iPhone related information on Wikipedia?

In my opinion the information about iPhone on Wikipedia should be significantly increased. Meaning several of the sections of this article should be separate articles - e.g. one article dealing with the "history of iPhone" / "development of iPhone", another with "why we should all buy iphone" a third with "Is Steve Jobs messiah and iphone the new bible?" and so forth. The article as it stands is very good, but I miss separate artcles that goes more in detail on the issues, particularly about the history and development of the device.

With an average of 50-100 million hits for the word "iPhone" on Google for the past 5-6 months, such an expansion is certainly justified. Particularly in light of the many much longer articles found on wikipedia dealing with much less known or even partially irrelevant issues.

At news.google.com, "iphone" has currently about 20.000 hits, compared to about 30.000 for "George Bush", 15.000 for "Iraq war" and 14.000 for "Hurricane Katrina", and more than for the 2008 presidential election. - These are just some random examples, but the Wikipedia entries for all the mentioned keywords are certainly much much larger than that of the iPhone, and are divided into many separate articles, so why isn't this the case for the iPhone?

Also, the iPhone's broad coverage on the various news-media suggests that the phenomena is not just associated with the world wide web, but in the society as a whole. (And also on a global scale, e.g. Asia and Europe.)

So based on this, the information about the iPhone on the Wikipedia should, in my opinion, ideally be increased 10-fold...

Jakobat 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is this the biggest iFanboy ever seen, or what? 195.92.40.49 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, at the moment it's way to much information actually. Time is precious, and a encyklopedia does not need to contain every singel bit of information available about the subject. It's way better if it's only a short description, giving the user a quick overview. What should be included in this article? A short history and a description (size, weight, features etc) of the device, that's all that's really needed. Do we need the date for the FCC approval, pictures of people waiting in line, speculation about future functions etc. 2007-06-30

I think you misunderstand. I agree that the current "iPhone" article has a sufficient lenght, but I propose that other Wikipedia-articles dealing more in depth with various aspects of the iPhone should be included. If you e.g. work for Microsoft and don't want to read more than a brief introduction, then you don't have to, but I don't see a point in resisting the idea. I, for one, wanted to know more about the history of iPhone and therefore conferred the iPhone article. I didn't find the information I was looking for so I had to look elsewhere. In an ideal world I would have found more information on the Wikipedia.

As the English Wikipedia at present has about 1,8 million articles, compared to approximately 120.000 for the Encyclopedia Britannica (the largest in the world after Wikipedia), it is certainly justified to include subarticles to important subjects such as "iPhone". Or is your opinion that Wikipedia should start to shrink instead of being gradually expanded? Is it your opinion that there should be only one Wikipedia article related to e.g. the war in Iraq, instead of the current 20-40?

Finally: Please sign your posts.

Jakobat 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this reasoning for several reasons:

1. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". if we follow your logic in this respect, the Wikipedia would have to be a porn site.
2. Wikipedia is not where you do original research.. If you find a reliable and verifiable source with a "history of the iPhone", then we kosher. But I think the article as it stands is mostly a good reflection of where reliable and verifiable sources stand on this topic.
3. The iPhone, ultimately, is of much less encyclopedic value than say, Astrophysics: it is not a revolutionary product in any respect, as it uses technologies pioneered in other devices. Just because Steve Jobs is one of the greatest salesmen to ever exist it doesn't mean iPhone is specially encyclopedic. It is encyclopedic, and we must have a page for it, but a Macintosh 128k it certainly isn't, and this article approaches it in size.

--Cerejota 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with some of this, I think you are exaggerating it way too much. As I mentioned, iPhone currently has about 20.000 hits on news.google.com. - Most of these entries ARE from reliable and independent sources, and points to the "notability" of the "iPhone", particularly as a news event. I also know that the iPhone has been discussed for half an hour even on shows like Charlie Rose that mostly deals with political issues. (In that very show Walter Mossberg from WSJ claims he has never in the past 15 years experienced so much hype about a product). So there should be plenty of information available for new expanded wikipedia entries. I don't follow the "porn"-comparison; there's plenty of articles related to sexual issues on wikipedia... However, the word "porn" only has 100 million hits on Google, which is the same as that of "iPhone". Neither do I accept your suggestion that the only reason for iPhone's success is Steve Jobs' advertising. Even if Steve Jobs' propaganda was the only reason for iPhone's popularity, does it really matter? It isn't up to you or me to decide wether the iPhone is a pioneering device - commentators, experts and analysts should decide that - as well as the opinion of the general population. I do find it sad that there's so little information about the Macintosh 128K on Wikipedia. But we should also accept the fact that newer products and news usually requires a broader coverage than older (in a similar way as the 30-year war from 1618-1648 has much less coverage on wikipedia than the present Iraq war, despite the fact that the former in its time was much more important). Jakobat 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually most news reports as well as comments by experts and analysts I've seen have in fact said it's way, way overhyped and is nothing special compared to what's out there. In any case, justified or not, hype is a particular poor source for an article. There may be 20k hits on Google news but most of them are likely saying more or less the same thing since there isn't that much to say that isn't already said here. Google is a particular bad way to determined notability in any case for so many reasons which are discussed all over wikipedia. Also you still don't seem to understand the difference between notability and fame. Linda Lovelace the porn star may say be more famous then say Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo the president of the Phillipines, but it doesn't mean she's more noteable. In any case, if you're so convinced that there is a lot of distinct, reliably source information out there, why don't you write the new articles on your talk page and tell us when your done? Nil Einne 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That "most news reports as well as comments by experts and analysts I've seen have in fact said it's way, way overhyped and is nothing special compared to what's out there" seem like everything from a balanced view on your part. I did go through the major news media's reviews: WSJ, USA Today, TG Daily, SF Chronicle, NYT, Engadget, New York Post, CNET, CBS News, Boston Globe: they don't say what you say. I find it sad that the marked reception/reviews of the iPhone has not been mentioned/discussed in the article, because then someone like you couldn't have made statements like this as easily. Your point about Google being poor for notability I agree, but I am not so sure for Google News. Your examples are not the best ones as "Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" has 1915 hits on Google News and 2 million hits at Google, compared to 19 hits and 375,000 hits respectively for "Linda Lovelace". Wikipedia says the following about notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Linda Lovelace would certainly not fall into this category, but I cannot understand that iPhone would not. As for your remark about me writing my own articles on my talk page...? Why don't YOU start to write all your articles on your talk page, and tell me when you're done? English is not my native language, I have a limited knowledge of the iPhone, so I am not really up for the job. I came to this article not so much to find the specific information about how the gadget works (this I can find at Apple's websites) as to find out about its history/development, the reason for all the hype, the phenoma, its criticism and so forth. At present very little of this can be found in the article. And I am disappointed about that, that's the reason for my post(s). However, for the past days some 100 edits have been made to the iPhone article daily. Certainly if more iPhone related articles was created, they would be filled up with lots of text in no time. Even if the only references was the very one's that are present in this article (much more information can be extracted out of them). Jakobat 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the objections by people are coming from sentiment such that spelled out in Wikipedia: The world will not end tomorrow. Sure the iPhone may be the biggest technological development since the original Macintosh (I doubt it is, but let's assume for the purpose of argument). But we should wait until it is clear that it is, not only so we don't jump the gun, but so we will have more reliable sources and publications to use in creating an article. For example, with the Macintosh, it's not at all hard finding info on its revolutionary features and its history.

Certainly the hype is that it is the Next Big Thing, with Jobs apparently considering the phone the greatest thing since the Macintosh. According to a recent New York Times article, Asian cell phone manufacturers, who have been rather blase, after having seen the iPhone, are now rather concerned and moving fast to produce their iPhone clones. They seem to believe the iPhone and Apple's way of doing things will revolutionize the mobile handset industry. At this point, however, a lot of this is just speculation. We certainly don't need to take the extreme step of spinning off several articles. I know there isn't enough material to create high quality articles anyway. The number of Google hits is really irrelevant to these concerns. --C S (Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think all the "rules" mentioned by you and others should be followed one hundred percent. Even Wikipedia says that the rules (regarding Wikipedia:Notability) "... is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

There's also much confusion about them. There's even a rule that says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." (See Ignore_all_rules). Perhaps this is the case here?

Because if you look at it in a broader perspective, what I see is this: We have an Encyclopedia (English) called wikipedia that has some 15 times more articles/entries than Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia probably contains enough text to fill up a small library if it was written in books. And we have a topic - iPhone - that everyone talks about, that is mentioned in all news media (which qualify as reliable secondary sources), and yet Wikipedia provide only one small article about that topic.

IF more iPhone related article existed, then millions of people would read them. But the case now is that people like me would have to go into the wilderness of a delusional world wide web to find more in-debt information (which I certainy know exist from the random reading of various news articles) about the iPhone instead of on the Wikipedia. Today, for example, a few days after the release of the iPhone, many people are obviously curious about the consensus review on the iPhone and the marked reception. So where should one look to find information about that? Ah! Google, of course! - Certainly not Wikipedia!

One of the strenghts of Wikipedia (compared to e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), in my and many other's opinion, is actually its broad coverage of recent events (note that there's a difference between the iPhone as a device which may or may not be revolutionary, and the iPhone as a phenomena/event). So when the Virginia Tech Massacre happened, for example, I was pleased to confer Wikipedia to find the relevant information. Where else should I go? CNN? That would not have provided all the information I wanted. Wikinews? No. Of course, if all the editors of wikipedia had to wait for a few months before starting the mentioned article, the very strenght of wikipedia would have weakened. It is certainly true that in time articles will have the potential to get better and better as more reliable and high quality secondary source becomes available. But I don't see that as an argument to wait, because it is really an argument to wait forever.

If all the rules was to be followed 100%, then perhaps 70% of all wikipedias text would have to be erased, maybe some hundred thousand articles should be deleted and so forth. But yet millions of people read those articles and wants them there. And should all be decided by a small elite/community that belive wikipedia should be this or that, rather than letting it in some way evolve into a place where one can find reliable and in depth information about various issues? I guess perhaps yes...! But I don't know if I like it.

The ironical thing is that the iPhone article precisely because of its popularity seems to be more restrained from growing in size (via related articles) than articles for more irrelevant issues, which the Wikipedia is stuffed with. In this way the proportion of the latter relative to the former on Wikipedia would increase.

But I guess this is not the correct place to bring up a discussion about what wikipedia should or should not be. I seem to be unable to get my points through, probably for good reasons. I also suspect the objections to my statements is related to the fear that more text about the iPhone would serve as a marketing for the device and augment its sales (which I don't believe is true; it will only bring out the truth and counterbalance delusional commercials and marketing that people otherwise would get exposed to).

In any case this will be my last word in this discussion.

Jakobat 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a case for having a separate technical article on the exact specs, capabilities and compatabilities of the iPhone. Apple's own information is far too skimpy (their page doesn't even mention that the phone has a speaker for hands-free use), and given the interest in this unit, many potential buyers will want to know exactly what it does and doesn't do ... whereas casual browsers of the iPhone main page might not care. For instance, can you load miscellaneous computer files onto it, like a memory stick? These things are difficult to find out. ErkDemon 12:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT the right place for that kind of information. End of story. We can't be everything to everyone. Chris Cunningham 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-pay Plan for iPhone

It has been documented elsewhere that there are Pre-Pay plans for the Apple iPhone. http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/01/prepaid-iphone-in-a-nutshell/
It should be changed that the iPhone is not only available with a 2 year contract.

iPhone Generation

Shouldn't there be more about the iPhonEration? There's a vaste amount of current culture enveloped in this device. The merger of the iPod with cell and Internet.

Scone47 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)scone47

The iPhone isn't the first phone with the internet. Those have been out for years. However, it was the second phone developed (and first widely advertised/released) with a screen that you can use your finger to control. That was it's big claim to fame, I suppose.  hmwith  talk 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the second finger-touchscreen phone, about the fifth touchscreen phone and about the eighteenth music/cell/internet device. Noteworthy indeed, Scone47...NOT! -- 195.92.40.49 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the first finger touch screen device, but it can likely claim to be the Multitouch enabled handheld device?

iPhone applications

There are quite a lot of iPhone applications (websites really). There's a list over at http://wwww.iphonetweaks.net/applications/applications.php. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article? 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link. -Atamasama 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

eh..help?

I have an iPhone, and do have pictures of it, but, I'm not sure of how to post images to articles. I'd be happy to post them if someone told me how to.

New Picture

Okay, I just got an iPhone. (yay) Want me to take some pics of it and replace the main image with them?-Samnuva 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.- I'll put this at the bottom of the list as soon as i have a responce, i just have found that it is rarely noticed if it is in the middle of bottom of a talk page as big as this

But if you had, your question would have been directly under a plea for wikipedians photos of the iPhone. I would also add that for the people who regularly visit talk pages they go straight to the bottom - as I do. Andrewjd 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do take pictures of your iPhone, be sure to upload them to Commons, and add them to Category:IPhone so that they can be used across all the Wikipedia editions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for cartoon

The caption under the editorial cartoon near the bottom of the article says "citation needed." The cartoon appears to be from Brian Duffy, who is the editorial cartoonist at the Des Moines Register: http://data.dmregister.com/duffy/details.php?id=2007-07-01

Dr. T. 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone does not stream .pls MP3

Since iPhone does not stream .pls MP3, why is Jossi reverting the posts with this clarification? Stick with the facts!

Libertyforall1776 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What iTunes can do versus what the iPhone can do is a horrible comparison, as is calling iTunes the iPhones' big brother. Comparisons between the iPod and the iPhone are more accurate, and the iPod cannot do that either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Nano

Should this article mention the cascade of news articles now talking about an iPhone nano? 132.205.44.5 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No nano

That was a rumor, (at least for now) and there was also a rumored iPhone shuffle. Which defeats the purpose, because one of the iPhone's main features is the touch screen, and an iPhone shuffle would have no screen..

"Hello"

Shouldn't the Hello advert section mention Apple's history with "Hello"? (like various Mac things) 132.205.44.5 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, could the "hello" section tell the story of how the entire concept for the ad (concept isn't the right word- this was a rip-off) was taken from an older short-film. from what i've read, the filmmaker was actually approached by apple with a request to use his idea (and compensate him for it) but when he refused, they decided to use it anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.222.8.173 (talk • contribs).

Synchronoss

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/news/iphone_activation_synchronoss_070907/

this would seem to the appropriate article to mention "Synchronoss Technologies, the company responsible for coordinating the activation of those phones between the iTunes interface and AT&T’s back office system"

Mathiastck 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Other platform support

In the article, under Other Platform Support, it says:

It is also worth noting that the iPhone is not compatible with any 64 bit version of Windows such as Windows XP x64 or any 64 bit edition of Windows Vista

I don't think that's a correct way of saying such a thing. Isn't it more decent to say something like:

Although Windows is a supported platform, the Apple didn't build in support for the 64-bit versions of Windows, like Windows XP x64 or any 64-bit edition of Windows Vista. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benedykt (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 July 2007.

Honestly, I don't see how this is worth noting at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LG Prada/iPhone

• "[LG later claimed that Apple stole both the ideas and concept of the Prada phone.] However, the iPhone had been in development for almost five years and AT&T was contacted three years before."

Three things wrong with this statement - not including a lack of references - which really says nothing but just adds more text to an already über-verbose article:

1. It doesn't say how long the LG phone was in development, which is kinda relevant to the point, folks;

2. It doesn't prove - or even suggest - the iPhone's design was finalised before the LG's. Apple could conceivably have had many previous designs then decided to change it when they found out about the LG;

3. So AT&T were contacted three years before. And? About what? Approving the design? A nothing statement presented as partial evidence to discount a public claim from LG. Weasel words.

Fact is, we don't know, so why is there an "however" which attempts to undermine LGs overt claim? It isn't commentary, it's opinion and justifies the regular attacks on this article and many of its contributors - I'd delete it but I know it will be restored in 15 seconds and I'll get called a vandal. -- Delsource (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No negative reviews?

I'm kind of missing the NPOV here. Are you seriously telling me nobody has anything bad to say about this thing? That it really deserves all the hype it's gotten? Strange. ChrisStansfield 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are such reviews, you are most welcome to add material about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No kidding!

I didn't mean to be overly subtle- I was making the point that I feel there are POV issues here, and frankly, I haven't enough time or interest to start researching the iPhone any more than I've already been forced to do by the overwhelming media hype. ChrisStansfield 12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The critics section has been incorporated into the body of the article, so yes there were plenty of people who "had something bad to say about this thing", but their comments are spread around, not concentrated in one section. See the "As always criticism is being erased" section. Mahjongg 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

However

I counted 10 instances of the word However. This is not an editorial, or an op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Quite. But don't dare delete them.... 86.17.211.191 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Droste effect picture

Wouldn't it be nice if the donator of the current Public domain iPhone picture took another picture of the IPhone displaying not the wiki page, but the current iPhone Wikipedia page with his own picture of the iPhone in it, effectively creating the droste effect, and also making the wikipedia user instantly sure of what the IPhone was displaying. At the moment, the picture is clearly displaying a wikipedia page, but it is a bit bland, and not instantly recognizable. Creating a new version with the iPhone displaying the same website page the user is looking at would be very nice! P.S the effect would not be completely recursive, but that would not matter too much. Mahjongg 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the picture you see today. I'll upload a new one as you suggest later...possibly showing the phone screen or Wikipedia as you suggest. FIshstick 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's a bad idea to show any wikipedia page in screenshots, at least if the logo is visible. It's common practice but it unnecessarily complicates the copyright situation. The phone screen would IMHO be a better idea Nil Einne 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I took, uploaded, and added the new picture in the infobox today, and can take additional ones in a similar setup if needed. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion - it would look better if it was cropped to remove the big black spaces. Also I think that the home screen (ie with icons) looks better as the infobox image than the phone running Safari. AndrewJDTALK -- 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uk release network

I wanted to add something along the following lines but am struggling, would appreciate if someone could do the honours

"Reports that a uk service provider has been chosen have been seen on numerous websites, including (http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/07/06/o2_wins_iphone_uk_contract.html)

It has been said that Telefonica's O2 has won the deal, these reports are, however, unconfirmed as of 16th July 2007

Danfoster20 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly indicate what is rumor

Rumors are included in the text and referenced as fact. Example, under 'Web connectivity', a referene is made to FINEEDGE. This is nothing but a rumor, but has been presented as, I quote, "This is probably due to the new "Fine EDGE" upgrades AT&T has been making to their network prior to the launch." should have started at the very least as "It has been rumored that ...", after all a mac rumor site has been referenced. Then I also want to bring up the danger, and ethic consequences of including rumors as this can mislead readers. What I really would like to see is a comparison between technologies, including theorethical and actually achieved numbers. Jdesmet 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Headphone jack

In the page, mention is made of the headphone jack being recessed such that many standard headphone will not fit. It should be noted that simple modifications may be made to standard headphones that will permit their usage with iphone. Proper sourcing may be found at: http://iphone.macworld.com/2007/07/minor_surgery_enables_bose_hea.php

I've done it myself, and didn't need to spend money on an adapter to avoid wearing the painful apple headphone.

I don't have edit capabilities on the main page, so if someone could add this, that would be great.

Vista Basic

I saw in the article it says Vista Basic isn't supported. Does anyone know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.114.27 (talk • contribs).

I can't find any evidence of this on the internet, so I'll remove that sentence barring a good reference. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This page needs to be archived due to its length, making some text obsolete and hard to navigate. Since I do not know how yet to archive, can another user do this immediately. T saston 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just set up auto-archiving, it'll get archived shortly when MiszaBot1 runs again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The archivebot is actively archiving here, and is configured to move conversations that haven't been active for two weeks out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IPHONE, OR I-SPY?

Thanks for removing the back door article about the spy phone, you must not let the americans in on this, good job you commy fools. I wonder, do you even care about your own rights? You are helping shape a great tomorrow and you will be judged because of it. I hope you have fun in hell bitches!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.119.123 (talk • contribs)

You may want to sell crazy somewhere else, I believe we're all stocked up here. mkthxbi! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to do some research. The iphone has a nice big back door built into it that up loads your info to web servers. Fact, but it will be erased because wikki is not built on facts.

XYMPKI/Yahoo provisioning vulnerability

I noticed that the information regarding the two vulnerabilities I found (added, by the way, by someone else) has since been removed - is there any reason for this? There's still a number of people who appear to be posting traces of their Yahoo connections, apparently with live account details. I honestly think this is important information that should be noted, and I'm mildly concerned that someone has removed it believing that either it's not true (it is, feel free to verify) or through a misplaced sense of duty toward Apple or Yahoo. Details can be found at http://blog.dave.cridland.net/ 217.155.137.61 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Ah, gotcha, verifiability, and it's self-published. Would it help that the user who posted it is the editor of the RFC on SASL, and that it's been picked up by Ferris Research http://blog.ferris.com/2007/07/iphone-imap-vul.html and Tech.co.uk http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/news/anyone-can-access-your-yahoo-mail-on-iphone?articleid=1644128097 ? 217.155.137.61 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally verified David's claims. I've also gotten independent verification from Apple that this is a known bug. AFAIK, Apple has has yet to publish a vulnerability statement. Regardless, the attack is obvious and should be noted in the article. Kdz 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. As soon as you find a reliable source, then the vulnerability can be added to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Wow ... i dont think i have ever read a better advertisement than this wikipedia article...you know this is an encyclopedia folks..not a catologue. Zendainc 17:47, 23 July 2007 (EST)

Please see this discussion in the archives. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatic patching?

I've seen brief mentions that the iPhone can automatically download and install it's own patches but haven't found a reliable source. If true, I think that would be worthwhile to mention, particularly on the section entitled 'Exploits'. Anyone have any direct info on this? Ronnotel 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)