Talk:IPod Touch

Firmware Update 2.0

Why does it say iPod Touch FW 2.0 was released on 7/10/08. It's not live through iTunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.133.100 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/10/iphone-2-0-firmware-5a347-available-early/ Groink (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone only, not iPod touch. --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make this more confusing, my comment when changing said it was compatible with iPod touch. That should have read not compatible. --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New Main Photo

Hey. The other day, I created a new photo using a screenshot of the 2.0 firmware overlaid upon the iPod Touch casing (Essentially what the current photo is). It's under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPod_Touch_2.0.png, so if anyone wants to consider a more up-to-date photo, it is there if needed...Gyrferret (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

differences

are there ANY differences between the ipod touch and the iphone (apart from calls and texts)? 81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are any non-hardware differences, neither article (iPod touch or iPhone) would be the articles to discuss it, because it would be the operating system/software that would contain the differences. Check iPhone OS. Groink (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Plain and simple answer: Yes.Gyrferret (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Per MOS:TM, we should present the product name as "iPod Touch", not "iPod touch". There is examption for the initial "i" because it is a distinctive mark of the product and there's an exemption for improper caps in the first two letters, but "Shuffle" should be capitalised per standard title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The second line of WP:MOSTM says: "Often, these names are written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation." I'm sorry but aren't Apple always consistent in the way that they capitalize their product names? The third sentence says "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)". Given that Apple never (except maybe accidentally) style their trademark as "iPod Nano", haven't we just invented a new style?

Also, and I admit I don't really have a good grasp of the rules that govern "standard English text formatting" so this may be a very dumb question, but if we are going to ignore Apple's choice for the capitalization of the first letters of the two words, why are we respecting their choice to capitalize the second letter of the first word? Shouldn't this article be titled "Ipod Nano"?

To be clear, I think the recent renaming of the articles was a mistake and just makes us/Wikipedia look more insular and foolish, but I leave it to wiser minds to decide. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion for these moves is at Talk:iPod Touch. You've also cut the quote short: choose the style that most closely resembles standard English. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it looked like that discussion was over. And yes I didn't include that bit above, but when there is only one style then the bit you quoted above doesn't matter does it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a specific exemption in MOS:TM for the first two letters because in standard usage every single source follows Apple's example; there is no such exemption for any other typographical quirk they choose. Every source refers to the iPod as an iPod; there is nowhere near that level of support for using "iPod touch" over "iPod Touch", mainly because it looks evidently broken to those who expect proper nouns to be title case (as in most educated English speakers). The MoS has recently cracked down on this pretty hard, and to good effect - the Apple articles shouldn't buck the trend needlessly.

As for what Apple do: Apple's considerations are strictly secondary to our own. Apple have a brand to protect - we have a legible encyclopedia to write. Apple's typographic convention is worth a mention in the article introductions, but that's all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris already answered for me. The style that mostly resembles standard English is Title Case. –xeno (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to these rules for "standard English"? Perhaps while you are at it you could point the BBC to them as well, because they don't seem to be familiar with them either. Thanks. Also if someone could explain how "iPod Touch" is legible while "iPod touch" is illegible. Thanks again. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you would have been taught what a "proper noun" is in school. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WSJ. WaPo. The BBC appears to function as an official advertising venue for Apple and Microsoft these days, so no surprise that they use the Apple typography. It's a trademark. We use title case for trademarks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is no wonder Google thinks Knol can go up against Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having an article with over a thousand words devoted to a product isn't promoting that product, as long as we deliberately capitalize a single letter of the product name ever so slightly differently from the seller. Amazing. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with promotion - it's to do with trying to enforce some degree of consistency on Wikipedia's typography. There's consensus that we shouldn't randomly deviate from the conventions of the language unless the issue has become embedded in the popular consciousness (iWhatever), and there's no reason Apple should get a free pass when nobody else does. And really, I'd have expected better from editors in good standing who happened not to win an editing discussion than pronouncements of doom and petty swipes at the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly when exactly did I lose this discussion, I wasn't even involved, wasn't even aware that this original debate was taking place here. Secondly you say that we make an exception for iPod because "Every source refers to the iPod as an iPod" adn the "issue has become embedded in the popular consciousness". Try typing iPod into Google. When I try it I get a result in the first page that says "Ipod". Just look at the talk page for iPod and you'll see many examples of people typing "Ipod" instead of "iPod". It seems entirely arbitrary to allow an exception for the first word but not the second. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it arbitrary? There seems to be plenty of logic behind the rules we have. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo Missing

Could someone upload a new photo for the ipod touch? the current one is not showing or has been deleted. i would make an account and do it myself if i knew how. 67.164.27.43 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

jailbreak

Someone should add that 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 and 2.1 are all jailbreakable

Also, we should say how 2g iPod touches are currently unjailbreakable because of a change in the processor, and that 2g uses 2.1.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rye10516 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"External" speaker?

Hate to nitpick, but doesn't the second generation iPod Touch include an internal speaker? It's located inside the touch, not attached via a cable to the device. 209.90.134.65 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any input after a couple days, I've made the change. After all, it's entirely contained within the device, so I don't know what's supposed to be "external" about it. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass storage (in)capability

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but a big distinction between the iPod Touch and all other iPod models is the fact that it can't function as a mass storage device. That's an important catch, and it isn't mentioned in the article. I'm still looking through the Apple website to find a page to cite this. It would also be useful to write why this is so (I hear there are compatibility issues with the Touch's file system or something). If anyone is ahead of me on this one, help would be appreciated. 67.170.85.139 (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an app in the app store right now that will allow a user to put whatever files they can on their iPod Touch. It is completely ligitmate, though the file transfer must occur over a wireless networkGyrferret (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dual fair use required in new image

The new image used in the article pictures Tap Tap Revenge played on iPod touch. As with all iPhone OS 2.0 applications, the application is not free and requires a fair use policy. I suggest we include a different one from the Apple website that shows an original application, so the image will only use the fair use policy once.

Smiley Barry

12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Revamp whole article?

I like the style of the iPod Nano article, or at least when I last took a look at it. I liked a description of the iPod in general, and a section for each generation or update, with tech specs for each one, and a paragraph on what was updated from the last one, and criticism from customers (like Early Screen problems, or Yellower screen, Battery life) (Mrdonnelly (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC))