Talk:IPod Touch

Screen's color depth

This is something that I just spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find (but couldn't! apparently Apple doesn't publish the number of colors that their products can display).

I would really like to put it in, as it would give the people an idea of where this player sits in terms of "color richness". E.g., a lot of smart phones are 16 bit (65,000 colors), whereas the new Creative Zen is 24 bit (16.7 million colors).

Does anyone know what the color depth IS? Thanks. 99.225.240.50 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

it's very hard to find indeed, the regular iPods have used 64,000 colors, so as a step up I think the Touch is 262,000 colors like most PVPs are, I doubt they have 16.7 million colors because I've seen it next to an Archos player with 24-bit screen and it wasn't as natural looking, though the screen was brighter. keep an eye out and let us know if you find out.

The article is way too negative.

I can't understand why the article has such an extensive "Criticisms" section, when you look at all the other new iPods' articles none of them have a Criticisms section.

It feels like the article was written by people who seem to hate the Touch. -Pho3nix- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho3nix- (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that all the criticism comes fromt he fact that this is a pretty revolutionary technology compared to the standard iPod. We all know what the iPod has and doesn't have by now, there's no point in pointing this out for every new iPod. Since this is something brand new, it will be criticized.NyyDave 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I sense a higher then normal level of vandalism. Mathiastck 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of products is somewhat of a regular thing nowadays in the tech world. IMHO, I think a circle of people on the Internet think much too far when it comes to expecting features in a product. About 10 years ago, consumers' expectations flew past what was currently available. I think the Internet age is very much involved in this, along with the ME ME ME ME ME complex. Think back to 1982 when EPSON was selling the MX-80 dot matrix printer. If that printer was sold in 1982 to today's finicky consumer, there would be complaints of the printer printing in jaggies, being too loud, the lack of 300dpi printing, lack of color, no letter quality fonts, yada yada yada.... My point here is that criticism of products is a bunch of baloney! Everyone on Wikipedia has an opinion - and negative spin like the criticism section is most editors' only creative outlet. I've always taken a product for what it is. And if it didn't have a feature I want, I just simply don't buy it - rather than hitting the blog scene and whine about it. And last, I don't think criticism is actually encyclopedic. Try reading a real encyclopedia. I don't see any criticism about Henry Ford's Model-T not being able to reach 0-to-60 in under six seconds, or that you couldn't get it in metallic red. An encyclopedia should be, stealing the words of Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am." Groink 07:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now the criticisms section is even more comprehensive. I can't understand why people are so bothered to find these small faults which don't really have any significance. -Pho3nix- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho3nix- (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One note about the storage capacity... I've seen a few attempts from editors to say in the criticism section that the storage capacity is either too small, or it is smaller than what's available in the classic line. If one, larger capacity flash drives (32GB for example) were available in large quantities, and two, at a price where it wouldn't place the price of the iPod touch over let say $500, then yes it would be something to criticize. BUT neither is the case right now! So you can't criticize this device for storage capacity. And second of all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, reading tea leaves or wishful thinking. Any comments along these lines will be rv'd Groink 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Wikipedians are a bunch of disgruntled hermits that get horny off of criticizing things. Why is there a war on trvia but not on criticism? I think we should discuss some things we can remove from the section.--Asderoff 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the trivia has to do with the fact that a separate trivia section is looked upon negatively within Wikipedia. There's an effort going on right now where certain editors are tagging articles that have a trivia section - despite the fact that the trivia/no trivia section argument hasn't actually been burned into an official guideline or style suggestion. So the next thing that happens is that the editors take the trivia and merge it into the other sections, so there is no longer a trivia section, but still keep the information. This is why other editors would rather have the lesser of the two evils: have a trivia section for the crap, rather than merging the crap into the sections and basically take the article down the toilet. There are other ways to go about adding nonsense information, such as creating an "iPod touch in popular culture" section (aka trivia IMO) so that the iPod touch fandorks can jot down every instance they see an iPod touch on TV, movies, magazines, mentioned in a gangsta rap song, saw the president of Ethiopia carrying one, etc. Groink 06:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"I completely agree. Wikipedians are a bunch of disgruntled hermits that get horny off of criticizing things." Alright, I think this topic has gone a little too far. If there's any published sources on notable faults on the iPod touch, if it can be found, users have a right to insert it here. There shouldn't be opinionated editing, selective editing, or any kind of editing but unbiased and citation-backed editing. Yes, I know there's users of this player or the iPhone that are satisfied or haven't experienced any of the faults, but that doesn't mean they can make the product(s) seem good by removing or 'softening' the criticism. That's propaganda, man. I've left the criticism of players in the Creative ZEN article, so long they have a good citation. And if anyone suggests adding trivia sections to Wikipedia, please read WP:NOT first. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)}_'NUCKS:5-6-0 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's where you and I differ: bugs can or cannot be criticized. There are basically two things going on here: 1) Bugs, and 2) Design flaws. IMHO, bugs should not be criticized - as bugs can be fixed. As you said, one person can experience the bug, while someone else does not. That's why bugs cannot be criticized in an article like this. Wikipedia should be looked at as a permanent document. If Wikipedia were to take this article and burn it onto a CD-ROM, then forever and ever the bug-based criticism will be etched in that article. That makes absolutely no sense - as the bugs will be long gone, but a version of this document will keep mentioning it. This is the attitude we should all be following. On the other hand, design flaws are basically features that are purposely implemented by the manufacturer. These design flaws - it is open season for them regarding criticism!!! They should be consistent with EVERY unit made up to today - as it is unlikely the manufacturer will address them. HOWEVER, each criticism should be supported by information giving reasons why the device functions that way. For example, people claim that leaving out Java in the Safari browser is a safety feature, while others consider it something to criticize. IMHO, it is Java that should be criticized for its security issues, and not the application that would be using it, therefore the criticism made about Safari lacking Java is POV. That's basically where I'm coming from. Groink 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Image

I have taken a picture of my touch on the home screen flat against a white piece of paper. I think this would be a better image for the article. Any objections? Matt J ^User|Talk 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Upload it and let's see it here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea the current image is pretty poor. Do it! RatnimSnave 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I've changed the introduction. iPod touch differs from iPod in a way that it has a multi touch. just stating the iPod touch is an ipod made by apple doesn't make sense. Mugunth 10:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet there are other ways to say that the iPod touch has Multi-Touch. There's no rule it has to be in the first sentence. Butterfly0fdoom 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Specs of the device

I've been digging around SSHed into the iPod touch and I've discovered that it's got 96MB of RAM for processes you run. Where would this type of information go? We have an Apple official spec list, but no full list of what the device has in terms of CPU and RAM for the OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.0.227 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Last two lines of criticism section

The last to lines of the Criticism-section is poorly written and irrelevant to the article, but they seem unremovable. I attempted to edit them out, but they didn't show up in the edit summary. Can somebody explain this? Wikiburger 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality in time as well?

Facts such as how much it currently costs, what the current status at Starbucks is, etc are surely not very Encyclopedic. It's just asking for the article to be out of date. What do you all think?

I wanted to put one of those Wikipedia banners across it in the article but I don't know where to find them.

RatnimSnave 09:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen material

Is everyone sure that the screen material is diamond? I couldn't find in on the tech specs of Apple's page. Someone want to verify the legitimacy of the screen's material? Thanks.

Marcus J. McLean 01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Music

I was wondering if anyone knew what the song in the ads?1 wit da force 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)1 wit da force

Music Is My Hot Hot Sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptimes (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Music Is My Hot Hot Sex" by Cansei de Ser Sexy. Evanturner (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

New Picture to better show the user interface of the iPod touch

As an average Wikipedian, it is my duty to enhance the article to make it more pleasing to readers, while keeping the article 100% accurate

So, it has come to my attention that the picture on this article does not show the user interface of the iPod touch clearly, compared to the iPhone article....

Therfore, I will upload a new iPod touch image to Wikipedia, which illustrates the interface better...

Any objections, comments, etc before I upload the image? Bentoman (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just that it had better be a picture you created yourself, rather than an image stolen from Apple. Also, it must be pure 100-percent unhacked. Groink (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick Haley Triva belongs to iPod advertisement article, not here....

I propose a solution to the trivia section on iPod touch....

The Nick Haley's ad thing really actually belongs to the iPod advertisment article, not here...

Any objections, comments? Bentoman (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bigger capacity in the future?

Are there any plans of making a Touch that has a bigger capacity in the near future?--Martin925 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)