Talk:iPhone

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ignatius.kc (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 June 2007.

Actually, the bluetooth can not be used for stereo headphones (as it also says in the article).

I noticed that a lot of the ones suggested above have still not been added to the adverti.. ahem, I mean "Wikipedia article". If it's because you are having trouble finding a source for it, here's one: http://www.mobile-review.com/articles/2007/iphone-name-en.shtml. That's one of the most respected mobile phone review sites on the web, so it should do.

Here are some of the other ones you can find on that page:

No multitasking (unless for the ability to play music in background mode), no editing of MS Office of Adobe Acrobat documents, and no saving of these, no remote management, no settings on the camera ( ...and yes, no third party applications, not even Java ones).

Lars Holm 07:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you dude ever tried out the keyboard to say it's "questionable"?

From where did you got the "No third party apps?" as Jobs clearly mentioned them?! "No 3G" My Gosh, even as fast it is ,3G sucks much of the battery (that's why your batteries are so weak), and Apple wanted a long-use battery (is 24 hours enough to you?).

NO MULTITASKING OTHER THAN PLAYING MUSIC IN BACKGORUND!?!?!? You should really search and read articles before saying stupid things. Go to iPhone's site and stop being ignorant...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.10.157.200 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 August 3 (UTC).

Oh how I hope this comment does not represent the level of intelligence of the people moderating the iPhone page, it would be a shame to let such an important page on Wikipedia remain the mess it (still) is...

Lars Holm 14:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the Features section looks like an effing iPhone commercial. Unfortunatly I don't own one to state its weaknesses, bt I'm sure there are several. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Every one of the weaknesses originally listed by Ignatius.kc are listed in the article. The lack of 3G, tethering, and an expansion slot are all listed in the section Absent features:

iPhone lacks a number of other handheld features that have not already been mentioned and are common in competing devices, including 3G support, voice dialing, voice recording, instant messaging, a memory card slot, MMS, tethering, A2DP, common Bluetooth file transfer (OBEX), GPS capability, copy and paste, native games, and support for MP3 files as ringtones. However, some of these features can be utilized by un-official means.

The lack of 3G—and the potential problems that causes—is also described in the section Web connectivity.

The non-replaceable battery is mentioned in the section Battery, including a description of complaints by a consumer rights group:

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a consumer advocate group, has sent a complaint to Apple and AT&T over the fee that consumers have to pay to get the battery replaced.[39] In addition, the scheme and pricing was not made known to buyers until after the product was launched.

The "questionable" status of the virtual keyboard is described in the subsection Touch screen, which is the first subsection of the Features section (and the fourth paragraph in the article):

The virtual keyboard has been considered its chief weakness and a risk for Apple. David Pogue of The New York Times and Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal both...found learning to use it initially difficult, although eventually usable. Pogue stated use was "frustrating" and "text entry is not the iPhone’s strong suit" but Mossberg considered the keyboard a "nonissue." Both found that the typo-correcting feature of the iPhone was the key to using the virtual keyboard successfully.

The lack of third-party applications is described in the section Applications (though, admittedly, without an explanation of how this could be a problem):

...Apple Inc. announced that the iPhone will support third party "applications" via the Safari web browser that share the look and feel of the iPhone interface. The applications must be created in Ajax or JavaScript to maintain device security. The iPhone cannot officially install full programs from anyone but Apple, although Steve Jobs has hinted that future third party applications are in development. Enthusiasts have demonstrated the possibility of unauthorized native code...

The section Web connectivity states that " The iPhone does not support Flash or Java technology." Finally, the section Camera says: "The iPhone features a built in 2.0 megapixel camera located on the back for still digital photos, but not video recording."

All of the descriptions I mention above, except for one about the digital camera, were in the article as of July 28, when you (Lars Holm) posted the statement that "a lot of the ones suggested above have still not been added". At that time, the section on the camera described it as taking still digital pictures, but did not explicitly say it could not record video: "...built in 2.0 megapixel camera located on the back for still digital photos." In fact, all of Ignatius.kc's weaknesses, except for the lack of tethering, were listed on June 29, when Ignatius.kc posted his/her original comment.

Regarding your own suggestions, the lack of third-party applications, is, as I have pointed out, described in the article. So far as I can see, the other suggestions—about the lack of multitasking, ability to edit Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat documents, remote management, ability to change the settings on the camera—are not mentioned in the article. But if you think that they should be, why don't you add them to the article? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm... guess I didn't see that. But I still believe that the way the features section is just divided into so many parts individually for all features makes it seem like a commercial. Slartibartfast (1992) 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• You can't describe a device without describing what it can do. If doing so makes it attractive, then that's an inevitable consequence. Making an effort to downplay such things in order to try to get people to not like the iPhone is POV. Listing the drawbacks of the device in a seperate list is frowned upon in Wikipedia and not encyclopedic, a good article will integrate facts within the body of the article and not seperate them out into bullet items. This article did have such lists until it was improved, however that has led to frequent criticisms by people who expect to find such lists. - Atamasama 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself well. I'm saying that we should consider making less but larger sections about the features not in lists, but still in paragraphs. So under Communications or a similar subsection would go all current subsections that fit in that category (Web Connectivity, Phone, Email), but as paragraphs, not as subsubsections (level 4 headlines). What I suggest is grouping features by the category a feature is in (Touch Screen and Other Inputs would go in Input Devices or another appropriate title for the subsection). Slartibartfast (1992) 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea to me. - Atamasama 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll probably work on it during the weekend since I'm pretty busy during the week (unless somebody else wants to do it). Slartibartfast (1992) 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done. I was a bit late, but I did it. Anyway, if anybody doesn't like the new organization, just open up a discussion and propose a different organization. I'm not sure I spelt miscellaneous right in that subsubsection there... but who cares, if I spelt it wrong, somebody will correct it. Till any further organizational debates, Slartibartfast (1992) 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC) P.S.: I actually went with subsubsections as opposd to my original idea since I though they would be much better organizationwise. Damn, I said organization a lot!

---

this POS advertisement doesn't even have a criticism section, every page about a merchandise should have a criticisms page. unlike what some apple fan boys think,the iphone **gasp** has flaws **double gasp**. in addition to the ones Ignatius had

• costs
• Crap Service
• incompatible with PC
• fragile
• touch screen is glitchy
• limited numbers (apple didn't make enough for the release, driving up prices)User: critic_but_not_writer

• OK, tell you what, after I do the restructuring of the Features section, smear it all you want as long as it's verifiable. Slartibartfast (1992) 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"every page about a merchandise should have a criticisms page." Actually that's not true at all; including criticisms about the merchandise within the body of the article is preferred over giving it a section on its own. For example, when talking about the EDGE network connection it is mentioned that it can't connect to a 3G network. That makes for a more readable article, and is a more effective criticism because it detracts from the feature that you feel is being "advertised" right where the feature is mentioned. Again, there was once a separate criticisms section but that information was moved to more appropriate places within the article. Read the article rather than simply skimming it for a criticisms section and you'll find plenty of drawbacks mentioned. -- Atamasama 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Entry title

There are two products with the name iPhone - one is released by Linksys, and the other by Apple. The entry for the former is under "Linksys iPhone" while the Apple one is simply under "iPhone". Perhaps for the sake of consistency, this entry should be called "Apple iPhone", with "iPhone" being a disambiguation page. Djedi 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the history of this talk page. This subject has been discussed to death in the early stages, and the current situation is the result. Mahjongg 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Trust me Djedi, this isn't an argument you want to get involved in because you WILL lose. Different rules apply for Apple articles, you'll soon learn. This page may read like the longest advertisment in Wiki history but only pages like Sony's Vaio get tagged with "this article reads like an advert". A while back a user was insisting that this page must NOT refer to the LG Prada under any circumstances whatsoever, then a day later insisted that the LG Prada article MUST refer and link to the Apple phone. Welcome to iWikipedia (formerly O'Wikipedia - where even Eddie Murphy is Irish!). 86.17.211.191 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Multi-touch

The iphone cannot be multi-touch, this is impossible for a capacitance type touch screen. The zooming is done by detecting the capacitance change pattern of fingers moving apart. It it would be useless for identifying two seperate discrete button presses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.145.34.220 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2007 August 7 (UTC).

I don't fully understand the argument here... But then how could it sense the pulling motion and accurately compensate if it was simply detecting the alteration in position, especially since most people would move both fingers? it would still see the single input in the same place and wouldn't know how to compensate and expand/shrink the image. 68.107.96.136 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Screen

Really stupid of me to ask this question ...but then .better late than never.. Is the IPhone screen LCD or a plasma? Yourdeadin 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

You might want to read the article before posting questions: "The 3.5 in liquid crystal display (320×480 px at 160 ppi) HVGA touch screen topped with optical-quality glass[2]". LCD. AndrewJDTALK -- 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...I just ...some how missed that lie...Silly me...sorry for the trouble Yourdeadin 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

Iphone Wifi Hotspots

Shouldn't we start listing some iphone wifi hotspots directories? I did a google search there are a few listings that appear when you type in "iphone wifi hotspots" (without the quotes) Daabomb

1) there is, as far as I know, no such thing as an "iPhone Wi-Fi hotspot" - there are just Wi-Fi hotspots, which devices supporting 802.11, including but not limited to, the iPhone, can use, so that's not something that belongs on the iPhone page.

2) Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, so it's not clear the link would even belong on the Wi-Fi page;

so I think the answer to the question is "no". Guy Harris 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to hook the Iphone up to a larger screen (ie: laptop) this would let people see and feel a laptop but communicate through the iphone. I think seeing and touching the larger hardware would be great and internet access via the iphone is all we need. A docking station/ usb interface would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.96.17 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Electrically conductive gloves

Some people might wonder why I have stated in the touch screen section that the IPhone can be used with gloves, but that special "electrically conductive" gloves must be used to operate the IPhone. The fact is that really the only reason that the IPhone cannot be operated with gloves on (if you ignore that wearing normal gloves will make your fingers thicker) is the fact that they are normally made from an electrically insulating material, and this prevents the capacitive touch screen from detecting an electrically conductive object, namely your finger, placed on the touch screen. However, when the glove -does- conduct electricity, there is really no reason why the touch screen would not work. I do not doubt that, looking at the many accessories there are now for the IPod, if there really is a need for gloves with which you can still use the IPhone some entrepreneur will create them. Mahjongg 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Smartphone?

There is much debate as to whether the iPhone is a smartphone. Since there is no mention that it is in the article and it's not included in the list of smartphones, I move that it be stricken from that category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IanCavilia (talk • contribs)

That sounds like silliness. No, that is not a good idea. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, based mostly on that silliness, I've just put an AFD on list of smartphones. Feel free to comment on it. -- KelleyCook 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I own an iPhone and it's certainly not a "smartphone". This is one thing that irks me slightly about the iPhone drawbacks that are often listed for this article; many (if not most) of them are features common to a smartphone. They aren't on the iPhone because it's not that kind of a device. The iPhone also doesn't toast bread, eliminate odors, or save you money on car insurance but those shouldn't be included in the article either. As an owner of an iPhone I'm not defending it by suggesting that these criticisms are irrelevant; on the contrary, replacing a smartphone with an iPhone has been a struggle for me, and I think comparing it to a smartphone (negatively or not) gives it too much credit. It is a great phone, but it is still just a phone (with very good Web browsing and music/video capabilities). -- Atamasama 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• As soon as a similar argument started a few months ago a Wiki editor (an account holder with a history revealing yet another heavy iWikipedian tendency) headed over to the article for smartphone and changed the definition so that it could be applied to the Apple Phone! Nearly got away with it too, but for some eagle-eyed editor with a brain, though he put up a fight. What did it for him was a cry that the Wiki article for smartphone justified his change to the Apple Phone article until it was pointed out that he was the one who rewrote the former earlier that day! And they say Apple users are more intelligent.... -- 62.25.106.209 12:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, note how as soon as the iPhone was announced, activity on the smartphone article went up by a large margin - and all of a sudden there was something wrong with the definition which had been fine for ages!!! LOL!! More proof of over-the-top, irrational iFanboyism. 86.17.211.191 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly makes a phone a "smartphone"? The current version of the smartphone page as of when I'm typing this says:

A smartphone is a full-featured mobile phone with personal computer like functionality. Most smartphones are cellphones that support full featured email capabilities with the functionality of a complete personal organizer. An important feature of most smartphones is that applications for enhanced data processing and connectivity can be installed on the device[1], in contrast to regular phones which support sandboxed applications. These applications may be developed by the manufacturer of the device, by the operator or by any other third-party software developer. "Smart" functionality includes any additional interface including a miniature QWERTY keyboard, a touch screen, or even just secure access to company mail, such as is provided by a BlackBerry.

and

Smartphones can be noted by several features which include, but are not limited to, touchscreen, operating system, and tethered modem capabilities on top of the default phone characteristics. A full-fledged email support seems to be a characteristic key defining feature found in all existing and announced smartphones as of 2007[2]. Most smartphones also allow the user install extra software, normally even from third party sources, but some phones vendors like to call their phones smartphones even without this feature.

Smartphone features tend to include Internet access, e-mail access, scheduling software, built-in camera, contact management, accelerometers and some navigation software as well as occasionally the ability to read business documents in a variety of formats such as PDF and Microsoft Office.

which is a bit of a collection of laundry lists.

Items from those lists that the iPhone has:

• touchscreen;

• Internet access;

• e-mail access;

• scheduling software, if its calendar counts;

• built-in camera;

• contact management, if its address book counts;

• accelerometers;

• navigation software, if the Google Maps stuff counts;

• ability to read business documents (PDF, some Office).

Items from those lists that the iPhone doesn't have:

• tethered modem capabilities;

• officially-supported third-party applications (other than Web widgets).

If by "operating system" they mean a full-featured operating system, I'd say an OS ultimately descended from one written for a 68020-based UN*X workstation counts here. In one place, the article speaks of "full-featured" email support, "personal computer"-like functionality, and the functionality of a "complete" personal organizer; those words leave room for interpretation, so I don't know whether an iPhone has those or not.

So, at least from those lists, most of the features mentioned in the first few paragraphs of the smartphone article are there. However, that assumes that all those features count equally. If, for example, official support for native applications is a requirement, then those other features don't matter - the iPhone isn't a smartphone (although, if Apple were to offer an official SDK, that might be sufficient to make it a smartphone). (The article does say "Most smartphones also allow the user install extra software, normally even from third party sources, but some phones vendors like to call their phones smartphones even without this feature"; I don't know whether that is intended to mean "you don't need third-party app support to be a smartphone" or "some phone vendors call some of their phones 'smartphones' even though they really aren't".)

As for the features in the "Absent features" list, if those are the "iPhone drawbacks that are often listed for this article", a number of them aren't listed in the smartphone article, such as voice dialing, voice recording, instant messaging, a memory card slot, MMS, A2DP, OBEX, GPS capability, copy and paste, and the ability to add ringtones; are they features that everything out there that's called a "smartphone" has, or are they features that some "smartphones" have and others don't? (For that matter, how many of those capabilities are features that some feature phones have?) And which of the missing features are the ones that made replacing your smartphone with an iPhone a struggle, and are those features ones that just about every phone considered a "smartphone" has?

(I'm not casting a vote one way or the other on this. My iPhone could only marginally be described as a "phone"; I think I've made an average of one phone call a week on it, if that (not that I use my dumbphone that much more). It's primarily a Web access device - which, for me, works pretty damn well. As such, my iPhone couldn't realistically be described as "just a phone", given that, at least based on how I've used it, it's not much of a phone at all. I'm not a person who lives and dies by his mobile phone, so the iPhone's deficiencies - whether they render it "not a smartphone" or not - don't matter to me; somebody who makes more use of smartphone functionality might be in a better position to say which items from the laundry list are essential and which are just nice.) Guy Harris 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You actually can't read PDFs or any office documents. The iPhone doesn't have such capabilities. You can view pretty much any document natively viewable by a standard Web browser without plugins. That includes HTML and plain text (via Safari); jpegs, gifs, pngs (via Safari or the photo viewer). And that's about it. It has no document handling capabilities at all, and the OS is less of an OS than a giant, fancy browser with plugins for Youtube (which is streamed, remember, just like a Web page) and video/music software. Even the Maps, Stocks, and Weather are really just web content.

The features missing from the iPhone that were present on my smartphone (and present on every other Smartphone I've used) include copy and paste (in other words, word processing in general), physical expandability (using memory cards or SDIO expansion), and last (and most importantly) the ability to install applications on the phone. That last feature is what the phone industry uses as the main definition for what is and isn't a smartphone. You ask whether the smartphone article implies that some phones labeled as lacking third-party apps are incorrectly labeled as smartphones, or whether a phone doesn't need that feature to be correctly labeled a smartphone. It is somewhat ambiguous in the article, but if you view the talk page you'll see that the former is the case. Apple has attempted to market the iPhone as a smartphone when it truly isn't. Not at this point at least.

If at some point Apple opens up the iPhone to developers (as has been implied but not explicitly stated) then most of these shortcomings can be overcome through additional add-ons and plugins, and at that point it might be more accurately called a smartphone. At this point it's a weak claim at best. -- Atamasama 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty disingenuous. I have a Siemens S66 phone. It's pretty basic, about 2.5 years old, and I can install java apps on it. But it's certainly not a smart phone. I can copy and paste contact info between people in my address book, but it ain't no smart phone. It even has a little WAP browser. But what it doesn't have is the designation 'Smart phone'. Maybe the whole smartphone category should be deleted, as there doesn't appear to exist a clear enough definition. I'd guess that the iPhone running an OS like OS-X would be enough, but apparently not... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The OS in an iPhone is OSX pretty much in name only. I've been supporting OSX since it came out (as an IS administrator) and I was a beta tester for the original version. The only similarity between what is on the iPhone and OSX is the name and the Aqua style of icons. I almost said "icons and menus" until I remembered that there aren't even any menus in the iPhone OS. Apple has called it OSX (although the version on my phone says "1.0" which indicates it's a whole new OS), abut they've stripped out anything "unnecessary" (in their words) which means almost everything that makes OSX what it is. And it hasn't officially even stated what the real differences are, but if you're familiar with the iPhone and a modern day Mac they have almost nothing in common. Safari and iTunes, that's about it.

As for your Siemens phone, well, it almost sounds like a smartphone. It lacks a touch screen though, which is probably why Siemens wouldn't designate it a smartphone (rightly so, I think people would complain about a smartphone without a touchscreen). -- Atamasama 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your iPhone can't read PDFs; my iPhone, which is running the recent 1.0.2 update, had no problem reading this PDF document. It was also able to read this Word document, although I don't know what the limitations of its ability to read Word documents are - Apple has (at least) two chunks of code that can read Word documents, the code that TextEdit uses and the code in Pages; my suspicion is that, if the code on the iPhone is related to either of those, it's closer to the TextEdit code than the Pages code. It also appeared to be able to read this Excel spreadsheet; I don't know where that code came from, as I don't think there's any code in OS X to read Excel spreadsheets, but there is code in Numbers to read them. It can't read PowerPoint, though.

I presume by "the OS" in "the OS is less of an OS than a giant, fancy browser with plugins for Youtube" you mean the entire OS, not just the UN*X core (so that it's not "an OS" in the same sense that the Linux in a TiVo box isn't "an OS"). As far as I know, apps such as the contacts and calendar aren't Web apps, they're native apps using UIKit, but, no, unless you're one of the developers working around the lack of an official supported SDK, it's not a full-blown mini-personal-computer OS.

So presumably the ability to have third-party apps is necessary to qualify as a smartphone; if that's the feature used as the main definition of a smartphone, what, in addition to that, is required to make something a smartphone? (And should the smartphone page be changed to note that phones without support for third-party apps aren't smartphones, regardless of what the vendor says?) Guy Harris 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like with an update you can read PDFs within Safari on the iPhone. I know that when I first started using this phone I couldn't. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll take your word for it that Word documents online can be read as well. My hope (more than a hope, a dream) is that one day I'll be able to actually install applications on this iPhone to do things I want to. On my old PDA-phone I had games, I could put documents like Word files and PDFs on my actual device and read them at will, I could do measurement conversions, I could write notes and back them up onto a computer, I could password-protect files on my phone so that people couldn't access them if my phone was stolen (allowing me to store sensitive work-related info on it)... My phone was what you called "a full-blown mini-personal-computer". That's what a smartphone is. I didn't mention the contacts and calendar as web apps, but those are standard features on a regular cell phone. I'll bet that any cell phone made in the past few years has at minimum a contact list, calendar, and clock as well as the ability to call someone up and talk to them.

I suppose that it's best to say that the matter is controversial. There doesn't seem to be an answer. I've used PDA/phones and the iPhone isn't even close at this point. But Apple has called it one over and over again, and it has been called one repeatedly in articles (probably as a result) despite many technology analysts claiming otherwise. I think it's a divisive issue and will continue to be so for some time. As an encyclopedia article it's probably best (if we have to say anything about it) that some say it's a smartphone while others don't. -- Atamasama 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this probably doesn't add much to what you guys are arguing about, but I just wanted to point out that the iPhone has been able to read PDF and Word documents since day 1. It was an advertised feature when Jobs was demoing the iPhone and I remember doing it with my iPhone while it was still version 1.0, both in the web browser and in email. b.y.w 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the iPhone might be that while it is not a Smartphone right now, it can be turned into one at any time, at Apple's will. It has the hw/sw potential, and sw can be upgraded. So, the fanboys look at the potential, while the critics look at the present functionality. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 09:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No the only "problem" is that there is no official source which defines what is required to be a Smartphone, even on the smartphone page. And for wikipedia editors to make one up would be Original Research -- KelleyCook 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

European network providers.

I have added the part about the new financial times reports of chosen European Service Providers, please feel free to edit as necessary as I am new at this!! :-)

Danfoster20 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did, I changed it to report it not as fact, but as a report - none of the parties involved have confirmed the rumour as yet... Phooto 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking the iPhone

Can someone put the story on the kid unlocking the iPhone under the controversy section. I would, but I am not a techie. Story is here. Miranda 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

George Hotz

Added some about the kid who broke the link between apple and AT&T. He probably deserves his own page....someone else can do that though.. :) Snotrockets13 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

header image

so, any reason why is the header image been replaced with a non-free image, when a free alternative not only exists, but was being used? – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason given was that the free images don't "look nice". That's a very weak argument for using a copyrighted image, especially since I didn't see anything wrong with the old, free image. The old image should most definitely be put back, or if not I'll just take a picture of my iPhone. -- Atamasama 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Iphone software unlock realised?

Basically the first all-software iPhone unlock is working: See: http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/24/iphone-unlocked-atandt-loses-iphone-exclusivity-august-24-2007

I think this is the first unlock that is working as a complete software-only unlock. Might be worth mentioning?

Cheers, Raayman 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Refrences for release dates?

Can someone please confirm the releases in South Africa and Brazil, as I have not heard of these? If not, would someone remove it? Thanks. ĞavinŤing 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed those for Brazil and South Africa; I have never heard of these either. The EU has a source down in the availability section, but I din't see a source for Australia. I'll add one soon.--HereToHelp 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No info on organizer

The article surprisingly contains no information on the progs implementing organizer functionality, i.e. the adress book, iCal and Notes. Why? Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 09:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

price drop

http://live.gizmodo.com/ Also official: 4GB iPhone is now gone. Only thing left is the 8GB iPhone for $399.

But, Steve says they want to get even MORE aggressive. What does this mean? iPhone will be even MORE affordable, so they’re dropping the price of the 8GB model to $399. Two hundred dollar price drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.68.113 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know, and that information's been added about 3 times. I've reduced it to one place; let's not add any more. Guy Harris 19:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the reference to 'price skimming' really necessary? Surely this should only appear if some source has referred to the allegation?24.168.114.30 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod in lead

I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I think there should be some mention of the iPod (and a link to it) in the article's lead. --Steven Fisher 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.--HereToHelp 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd Party Applications

I'm surprised that no mention is made of the 3rd party applications currently being developed for the iPhone and iPod Touch. See this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.stoker (talk • contribs) 08:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Current picture

The current picture File:Iphone menu.jpg features either a ColorWare-colored iPhone or an iPhone in a rubber 'skin'. I feel that an iPhone sitting in a dock, unmodified, would provide a better image for the article. 203.87.119.103 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)