Talk:IPod Touch

ipod touch 3 generation

Will the user 71.153.220.234 please cite a real Reference for ipod 3th generation before adding such information on wikipedia please, as such i cant find any or any information about a possible apple event on the 3th of Feburary, besides as shown in previous generations the ipod touch new versions have been lauched early september and it would be stupid for apple to lauch a new revison only 6 months after lauching the current product. (FastKarts (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

So far there is no evidence from third party sources that an iPod touch 3G will be released. No more speculative information should be added until Apple officially confirms the release. Photographerguy (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been a lot of rumblings about new updates to iPod touch, iPod nano, iPod classic coming in September. Could we address these in a section called "Future Expansion Features"?

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)

It is compaible. The update had to be bought though. Through the store, therefore it would npt have appeared on the Summary Tab of iTunes. (74.14.220.119 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 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)

Why not just use some of the photos apple provides? or is it a violation of copyright? they said you can use it as long as you cite them. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ipod touches are useless when you try to update them they crash and then you have to go and restore them and they crash again and it is impossible to load music on easily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.16.17 (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (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)

I notice that a GPU (PowerVR, was it?) is listed under the iPhone's specs but not in the iPod Touch specs. Mistake in specs or omission from differences? 92.235.207.214 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the GPUs, but the processor sure is faster. http://www.pcworld.com/article/154518/.html?tk=rss_news Kevin chen2003 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The iPod touch should have the same PowerVR GPU. It probably was a mistake/omission in the specs. 128.36.46.242 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also in the differences section, more specifically, the differences between the first gen and second gen touch, it should be mentioned that the 2nd gen has improved audio quality thanks to a new DAC. This is a pretty important difference because some people didn't buy a 1st gen solely because of the audio quality, which was just average. The 2nd gen, in comparison, has very high audio quality ratings (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/32182/review/ipod_touch.html and http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/32182/tests/ipod_touch.html) thanks to the DAC change, and is supposed to be one of the best sounding players on the market. 128.36.46.242 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (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)

Shouldn't the article reflect how the company (Apple Inc.) calls the product? Apple Inc. refers to the touchscreen iPod as iPod touch (refer to: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/) not "iPod Touch." Apple has been very picky about this capitalization since the introduction of the fourth generation iPod. Initially, it was called the "iPod Photo" then the "iPod photo" then just "iPod." Since then, any word put next to "iPod" has always been lowercase as in "iPod nano" and "iPod shuffle"

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)

"it's to do with trying to enforce some degree of consistency on Wikipedia's typography" Wikipedia's consistency should take a back seat ONLY to accuracy. I see that someone has "corrected" my changes already. We are spreading misinformation. rowley (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud Wikipedia's determination to abide by English usages and best practices. When it does so at the cost of accuracy, however, it goes too far. Wikipedia cannot serve as the reference it is supposed to be if adherence to a "rule" causes it to fail in reflecting the real world usage. People come here to find out what the accepted usages are. Don't spread misinformation. Apple has been very clear in their product naming: "iPod" is first-letter-lowercase, second-letter-uppercase, and the model names that follow are ALWAYS lowercase (except in the original usage of iPod Photo, which was not an "official" model designation). If someone comes here looking to find out the correct usage and we send them away with nothing but what our "guidelines" tell us to do, we are doing them a disservice. rowley (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss guidelines - for this one in particular, go to WT:MOSTM. _TalkIslander 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not discussing guidelines. I have no problem with the guidelines. I do have a problem with mindless adherence to them when this produces factual inaccuracy. This is most disheartening. I work as a copywriter and copyeditor. I often turn to Wikipedia for reference, especially in matters of current usage. This misapplication of Policy means that I can't trust the information I find in Wikipedia. We are self-vandalizing. rowley (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...but by that argument, any adherence to WP:MOSTM is "self-vandalism". Take Thorpe Park, for example. Their website, and probably style guidelines, dictate that the park is named 'THORPE PARK', and yet clearly it isn't suitable to go through the article (and all related articles) and change every appearence of 'Thorpe Park' to 'THORPE PARK'. That is what WP:MOSTM is for, and although this isn't as drastic an example, it's exactly the same. The trademark capitalisation is mentioned in the first sentance - that is enough. _TalkIslander 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly not "enough." For one thing, it does not explain that the name of the product is to be capitlaized this way when writing about it, not just when providing trademark attributions. The bottom line should be clear, here. If someone comes here looking for the correct way to spell and capitalize the product name when writing professionally about it, he or she will not receive correct information. If Wikipedia cannot be used to procure accurate information, what good is it? rowley (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, "it does not explain that the name of the product is to be capitlaized this way when writing about it, not just when providing trademark attributions" - says who? Citation needed... _TalkIslander 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "Says who" was a stupid question :P. I meant "Says where", but that just doesn't have the same ring to it... _TalkIslander 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to respond to that remark as T.H. Huxley responded to Samuel Wilberforce, but I'll let the mere reference suffice. Simply, this: Put yourself in the position of a writer who consults Wikipedia to ascertain the correct and precise way to write about iPod or iPod touch. He sees the statement that the name is trademarked in lowercase, but everywhere else it is shown in uppercase, or title case. What this communicates is: "when stating trademark attribution, use 'iPod touch'; when writing about it, use any old convention you want." This is not correct. Apple has clearly and consistently established usage, and it is within our capability to comply. I repeat: we are spreading misinformation, and so far I haven't seen anyone respond to this IMPORTANT point. To whom must I appeal? Jimmy Wales? rowley (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go with touch with lower case. I argue that the most important trademark is iPod, however we can use touch as a verb which would mean that it would have to be lower case. The same goes for shuffle although it is more difficult to argue for nano and classic. The other point is we can argue that the lower case word is an adjective, describing what type of iPod it is. Therefore no capitalization is warranted. This cannot be recognized as a valid reference article until this is corrected! Geoff (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2009 (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)

Also, please notice that the iPhone OS 3.0 is currently jailbreakable: see http://blog.iphone-dev.org/post/126908912/redsn0w-in-june —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.130.204.166 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (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)

The Apple says it's a speaker. Some say it's external, because it's sending the sound outside, but I say external means it should be visible from the outside. It's not, grills are not cut out for it, it uses the metal back to vibrate sound out of the iPod. So it's internal. I really doubt anyone would care (74.14.220.119 (talk) 21:56, 30 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)

Gyrferret, what App is this that you mention? Aside: Where is the reference for the amount of memory for the iPod touch. I question the accuracy of this figure. 128 MB seems low, especially since the iPhone has 512 MB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptcolo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 28 October 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)

There are free 2.0 games... And they have the image on their site, which you're able to copy. No harm done. If they didn't want us to have it they would have made it uncopy-able. TTR probably let Apple release the image everywhere, this image is used to ADVERTISE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.220.119 (talk) 21:58, 30 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))

iPod Touch reviews

Since I know this isn't the place to discuss the iPod Touch itself, anyone who actually owns one, please drop a personal review on my talk page. Thanks. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of "Technical Specs"

I was noticing today that the article is only using the 2nd generation iPod Touch Specs. This is fine and dandy and all, but this is wikipedia! We gotta make a table called "Technical Specifications" that includes the specs of both generations and all (possible) generations to follow....13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs)

Product is not colloquially called iTouch

My argument is that the product is not colloquially called the iTouch, it is *incorrectly* called the iTouch. That is not the product name and just because people call it by the wrong name doesn't change that fact. Having it in the article gives the air of being correct or acceptable when it is not. If a bunch of people call me John when my name is Christopher doesn't mean that John is now an acceptable name to call me. Please consider changing it.

-Christopher Wertman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdionysus (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Not done, there's several decent sources provided in the article (including respected news sources such as Arstechnica) referring to it as an iTouch. It is indeed not the official name, but it's certainly widely used - and that's pretty much what 'colloquial' means. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These sources do not state this as a fact or even explain the 'colloquial' usage of iTouch. The inclusion of this colloquial name is original research. riffic (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, inclusion is not an affective argument method on Wikipedia. Simply, it just means the other examples mentioned on Wikipedia mean they might also be wrong. Groink (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The unofficiality of the nickname does not make it "wrong", "incorrect", or unencyclopedic. Is Microsoft's name "Micro$oft" (or similar)? Certainly not; but does that mean Wikipedia should not mention at all that a significant number of people jokingly call it that? Again, no. Wikipedia includes pop-cultural information surrounding many topics, this is one such instance. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are pointing to a bunch of websites and drawing a conclusion. That is original research. Also saying that iTouch is the colloquial name, suggests that people only call it "iPod Touch" when they are talking formally. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. So at the very least, the word "colloquially" need to be replaced. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, "colloquially" does not imply that other terms for the same thing are purely formal. [1] But I've changed it anyway. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, all those sources prove is that Jeff Smykil, Jason Chen, Mark Kaelin and Nicole Martin call it the iTouch. None of the sources prove wide use. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Four separate reputable media sources all using the name does not qualify as significant/noteworthy use? Seems the bar is being set unreasonably high. I also refer you to my comment below regarding Ma Bell. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's strongly implied by the several reputable sources' use of the term in reference to the iPod touch that it's at the very least a popular nickname for the device. "Ma Bell" shouldn't be taken out of the AT&T article just because no one's written an article specifically on the emergence of the term "Ma Bell" (who would?). It's enough to cite its frequent use in popular media. Same applies analogously here. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people call it an iPod Touch, and others call it an iTouch, and so on. It doesn't matter (i think), because different people call it different things. (as an example, I call it an iPod Touch, as do 5 other people I know, and other people I know call it an iTouch.) --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what we don't have is a source stating that the iPod Touch is sometimes colloquially refered to as the iTouch; instead, we have a few sources that incorrectly refer to it as the iTouch. Big difference. Untill we have the first, we shouldn't be incorrectly refering to it as the iTouch on here - as people have pointed out, that would constitute original research. Appart from all else, it should be made clear that there is another entirely unrelated product (well, except that it's a media player) that's actually named the iTouch. No doubt named such to try and gleen some market from the iPod Touch, but that's not relevant. _TalkIslander 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The similarly named products are covered on iTouch, which is a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybercobra (talk • contribs)

Have clarified statement for greater precision as it's not technically "colloquial". Instead emphasized unofficial-ness of term. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Further research shows that Apple may have actually used iTouch at least once, though the source is not completely reliable: [2] --Cybercobra (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"not completely reliable"? An alleged screenshot of Apple's website posted anonymously on some internet forum? What could possibly be wrong with using that as a source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be sourced or used in the article. Just a funny result I came across in googling on this topic. If only text could express ironic tone... --Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are going about this completely wrong. Instead of turning to companies and sources, we should turn to what happens in day to day life. You know how many times I've pulled out my iPod (Touch) and people have said "Hey, is that an iTouch?" It doesn't matter if Apple considered it, colloquial is something that is used in casual speak.

For instance, Chevrolette was called Chevy for the longest time. Yes, the term was un-official, but that's how people refered to it as. Plus, no offense Cobra, but using the term "third-parties" seems exclusionary or something. How about just "informally"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume from that comment that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core policies. Please read them. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Until someone comes up with a source that states "iTouch" is used colloquially, the first two policies mean it doesn't belong in the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And, while we're on the subject of original research, my original research suggests the complete opposite of your's. I've had an iPod Touch for just under a year now, and I've never once heard it, colloquially or otherwise, reffered to as an iTouch. What puts your word above mine? Nothing, hence WP:OR is out of the question. _TalkIslander 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Are you replying to me or Gyrferret? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyrferret, but backing up your point, hence it's indented from your comment. It seems we two are destined to completely misunderstand one another persistantly... ;P _TalkIslander 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* I understand the point you guys are saying. I really do. Here's the known issue, is that wikipeida relies on information from other sites, yes. What's to stop me from making a website, refering to an iPod Touch an "iTouch", and then throwing it on the article as a source? Fallibility ahoy! And, at no point did I say "I've heard people call my iPod touch an 'iTouch', therefore everyone calls it an iTouch".

Second (though there was no first), can we just drop it if it's going to cause such controversy over such a tiny detail? Yes, wikipedia aims to be thurough, but at the cost of what? Progess? Can we just all just agree to disagree? Yes, it exists. It exists in my world, then again, I exist in a world where people aren't familiar with Apple products. I mean, we already had the capitalism issue. But, if the past must repeat itself (even if there is choice in the matter), then I shall sit back and relax. I feel like someone on a mountain surrounding the town on Hiroshima on that fateful day.... ahhhhhh..... I'm going back to fixing my gramatical errors; I'll leave the content to the guys with the big gunsGyrferret (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

cptcolo Charles Everson - I agree with Chris Wertmen, this is an encyclopedia, and therefore it should describe the subject as it is, simple as that. Some people incorrectly refer to it as the iTouch. It is just wrong like spelling a lot "alot". Many people do it, and anyone would understand what you are talking about, but it is not correct. A reference source must be correct, the iPod Touch should not be referred to as the iTouch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.187.156 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The other day, I was borwsing some electronics at the store that I work at. I discovered some iPod Sound systems. On one that I looked at, it had a "settings wheel" where you would adjust the base length and depth in accordance to which iPod you would mount. "iTouch". Not iPod Touch. Pictures soon to follow. I'm just saying, it's more prevailant than it should be... but it still is something take into account.Gyrferret (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How is something a company developed considered "original research"? It's something a 3rd party has made and it is how that company refers to the iPod Touch.Gyrferret (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that your personal experience should be included in the article, then that is original research. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What?!?!?!??!? I'm not suggesting that this is my expirience. I'm stating flat out that this is how a company refers to a product. That is not my personal expirience. That is a verifiable fact.Gyrferret (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even given us the name of the product. At this point all we have is your personal anecdote. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote Gyrferret: "Pictures soon to follow". If we're going to be completely 100% picky, then yes, right now all we have is his anecdotel evidence, so right now it's OR. If, however, he posts said pictures, then it's a different matter, and we have no reason to assume that he's not going to... _TalkIslander 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to post photos. Gyrferret can tell us which product has the word "iTouch" printed on it. I'm sure there will be photos already available on the web. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That of course would work too. All I'm saying is quit jumping straight down his throat... _TalkIslander 21:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Islander. The product is the iLive Karaoke machine. One of the settings on the Dock is for "iTouch". If you cannot find a picture online, lemme know and I can snag one on a shift of mine.Gyrferret (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't call the iPod Nano the iNano, or the iClassic, so why the iTouch? Mr. moose (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because it was so similar to the iPhone in functionality that people latched onto the "i_______" frenzy. So when the iPod Touch was released, people may have took it as... "it's not just an iPod, it's an iTouch". I'm just guessing here. Hell, even a guy on the news called his iPod Touch an iTouch. No. That's not original research. That's just conveying what I saw on the news. joy.... Gyrferret (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have heard it called "iTouch." That doesn't make it colloquial; merely incorrect. rowley (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went to the iLive home page in hopes of finding the product in question raised by Gyrferret. There is indeed a reference to an "iTouch 2nd gen." and "iTouch Rotary Setting" on their site under the "CD+G Karaoke Player with Dock for iPod® IJ309B" karaoke product under the FAQ (last question) but on the same page they also refer to the product as an iPod Touch. Their FAQ is inconsistent and unclear as to whether iTouch is referring to iPod Touch or their own wheel technology on the device. I simply wanted to offer this link to this discussion, not to take sides in particular. BrionSwanson (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone can bring forward reliable sources that state more or sess that people other than the writer of the article refer to the device as an itouch, these sorts of statements can be kept. Until then, it's wp:or and if added will be promptly removed. riffic (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

*cough* *cough* --Cybercobra (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

*cough* A handful of people all making the same mistake doesn't prove anything except a handful of people all made the same mistake. *cough* AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When four separate mainstream reliable sources use the term, I think it can be safely assumed it's not a mistake. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've run into this problem before, where an entire continent believes VHS stands for vertical helical scan, while the inventor and the rest of the world says VHS stands for video home system. Matter of fact, if you do searches on the Internet, you'll find dozens of references for vertical yada yada. BUT still, the increase in number of people mis-intepreting the acronym does not validate the mis-interpretation. And that's why despite the sources, vertical yada yada ceases to exist in the article. That's how sources should be used on Wikipedia - not to prove that an entire population of on-line people use itouch because they're too lazy to type "iPod touch", but rather to validate the correct information that was being used by Apple on Day 1. Here's the reality of it all: with each passing day, one or more trademarks are being shortened because of people's inability to say something like "International House of Pancakes" or "Dairy Queen". Groink (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Groink, you're kind of misinterpreting this.. The source needs to say more or less that "people refer to the device as an itouch (colloquially | incorrectly | mistakenly)." So far none of the sources have presented anything other than the author using 'itouch' in the title or lede. But I agree with you about the rest of it. riffic (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how are the articles, by virtue of their use of the term, not direct proof that some people call the device by that name? --Cybercobra (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you're drawing your own conclusions. riffic (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It proves use of the term to refer to this product, regardless of how you want to classify the alias (colloquial, incorrect, mistaken). Your objection seems to apply only to the classification (which I grant), not the use of the term itself. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It proves nothing other than that the authors of those articles use the term, and your ability to draw from that conclusion a fact that is your own. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." riffic (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided my proof. Many of you were hoping that I wouldn't. And when I did, you refuted it with yet another argument. For some reason, many of the proponents of this argument that "it's not an iTouch"seem to find this article in particular more sacred than a church. My Goodness. What's so wrong with putting "incorrectly called an iTouch?. If you search wikipedia for "iTouch", it redirects to "iPod Touch". By the standards set down, the article "iTouch" shouldn't redirect to anything. Let's assume that someone does a search trying to find out what an "iTouch" is. They will find themselves asking themselves "This is an article for the iPod Touch". We should put a note that the product can incorrectly be called an iTouch. With these standards, the page "iTouch" shouldn't redirect to anything. It shouldn't even exist.

EDIT: After reading the rest of the rest of this talk page, I ran into an oddity. Sr.AlistairMcMillan noted in THIS contribution that "compared to touches..." What's a "touch"? For the reason that even we don't ALWAYS call it "iPod Touch" ALL the time, we should at least note that it is INCORRECTLY called an iTouch. I've said what I need to say. KTHNXBYE Gyrferret (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no title picture?

Shouldn't there be a title picture of the 2nd generation touch? there is not one picture of the 2nd gen on the whole page. brent (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the 2nd gen iPod touch looks almost the same as the 1st gen, so there isn't much of a need. 75.79.12.86 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While I kinda agree, it's hard to get a "nice" picture of the 2nd gen. iPod Touch. The 1st gen picture in itself is a miracle in itself that it is present on wikipedia because of the stringent copyright laws around it. But, if someone has a 2nd gen. iPod Touch on hand that they are willing to take an artistic photograph of, then by all means do so and slap it up.Gyrferret (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Specifications

According to the Apple site, the 2nd generation iPod Touch does not, i repeat, not have an internal speaker capable of playing any music. From experience, the internal speaker generates the click noises and the standard alarm beep. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because the specifacation is considered biased. Test an actual iPod Touch 2G at an Apple Store. It does indeed have a built-in speaker. Also, you were mentioning the old iPod Touch 1G.--Megamanfan3 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Megamanfan3: Apple's site is NOT biased. The specs I saw came from Apple, so thus, Apple must have issued the wrong tech specs page (this means that apple should update their technical specs of the iPod Touch). --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC) (intended to post this 3 days ago, but forgot)

Apple's site clearly says the second generation iPod touch does. "A built-in speaker lets you hear the music, dialogue, and action without headphones, perfect for casual listening."[3] AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To megamanfan3: Thanks for stating the obvious that I am wrong, and since I am wrong, I can clearly see that the preceding message is regarding the iPod Touch 1G, so PLEASE stop stating the OBVIOUS.
To AlistairMcMillan: I did not see that page (I looked at the technical specs that Apple provides).
--TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are right. They don't mention the internal speaker on the Technical Specifications page. It is however mentioned on a bunch of other pages about the iPod touch and Jobs mentioned it in his presentation, so it is definitely there. An omission on their part, I guess. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should tell Apple that, because that is a SERIOUS omission on their part. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Recenter! Umm, while I feel it is something to be notable, this shouldn't turn into an "iPod Touch" vs. "iPod touch" fight. However, there is an internal speaker, yes. There is an internal speaker in the 1G. Yes, there is an internal speaker in the 2G. However, where do we draw the line? Technically, every "speaker" is internal. Look at your phone. Technically, every speaker is "inside" the phone. I think the term "external speaker" should be limited to Stereo systems and the likes.

Yes, it looks mislead from even Apple's website, as the photo illustrates the speaker as being just on the outside of the input-area-thing. At any rate, [4]. Enjoy!Gyrferret (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyrferret, this argument was about whether the internal speaker could play music, not whether there was or wasn't an internal speaker in the iPod touch. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well, if there's only one speaker to be found, and it is on the inside.... I think some math is starting to kick in.... But I agree, perhaps it was an oversite on Apple's part. As smart wikipedians' we should be able to reason things out for ourselves rather than consistently rely on sources, because even sources are fallible to error.Gyrferret (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Everson - I own the 2nd Gen iPod Touch, I am listening to music coming from the built in speaker right now. It works for palying music, but is rather pathetic. At the lowest volume, it is as loud middle volume on my LG 8350 playing music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptcolo (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Include MSRP at release

After researching how the release prices of ipods have changed with new generations, I looked for reliable sources (apple itself--press release), learned how to edit tables and added the MSRP's at release. My changes were soon reverted with a polite explanation and link to the no price policy.

The spirit of the policy seems to be for wikipedia to not become a "lowest price" or "bargain hunting" site but the release prices are different in the sense that they will never change and add valuable information to the article (even historically significant information). 67.191.92.195 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating the price into the aricle serves no purpose whatsoever unless pricing of the product is notable and too historically important to ignore (which in this case, it is not). If people want to know how much an iPod Touch costs, they can google it or ask someone who owns one. If they want to compare the price of previous versions, like I said, Google is your friend. Please re-read WP:NOTCATALOG, especially #4. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but you missed the point... it is not about how much an ipod costs, it is about how much it cost at launch which could or could not be its current price (which I do agree is irrelevant.) That is an important part of the ipod as I'm sure if it had had a higher release price it would not have been so successful; it's information that will never change and will always be part of the ipod. It is historically significant in the sense that even 100 years from now it will matter to people what the release price was.

You're right that google is likely to have that information but it is also likely to have every other piece of information on this site and much more, yet this site is hugely popular and useful so I dont know how valid that argument is. All right, mods know best so I'll stop bugging now. 67.191.92.195 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As much I would love to agree, it seems to early in the product's life cycle to include MSRP. Imagine if we included the MSRP for every brand of gum. Maybe down the road, yeah, it'll be worth sticking in a timeline of specs and/or prices. As it stands, I see no reason to include it. However, I think we should still leave the RIDICULOUS cost of the "upgrades" and "updates".Gyrferret (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd Generation iPod Touch photo

Does anyone have a picture of the updated iPod Touch 2G to be used as the main photo?(VisvambaNathan (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

For those wanting the title image to be that of the iPod touch 2G

I'm not sure if it's allowed to be used on Wikipedia but on the PR section of Apple's site there are 3 very good images of the iPod touch. Again not sure if it's allowed but I wanted to mention it anyway.

Oh and if that doesn't work I'm about to get one so maybe I could get a nice shot of it.

I believe that so long as we are give the permission to use those images by apple, then it should have no issue being on the page. Even the image used now is "for lack of a better image". The legality surrounding it is kinda in question. I'm sure apple will have no problem with it, because we're not "demeaning" their product and negatively affecting sales.Gyrferret (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not quite correct, no. Apple would have to give permission for anyone to use the image, i.e. release it under the GFDL - it's very unlikely that they'd do that. If they gave only Wikipedia permission to use it, we couldn't. Any such image would fall foul of I3 in the criteria for speedy deletion. See this note from Jimbo back in 2005. _TalkIslander 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, cannot we use an image under the same rationale as the image that exists on the page right now "in the absence of a free alternative"? Well, a photograph of a 2nd gen. would be justified, though my only qualm would be the quality of the photograph....Gyrferret (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have used an image of the 2g from the commons along with the fair use screenshot that has been used for a while to update the image. The licensing is no different than the previous image, so we should be set. Sir Stig (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I managed to photograph my 2G touch today, and I through this together: http://e.imagehost.org/0362/ipod_touch.png. It's hardly an example of my greatest Photoshop ability, but it's decent and free-use minus the screenshot (I hereby release my parts of the picture to public domain). Sir Stig (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Screen Resolution.

Question out there fella's. Why is it that the iPod Touch and iPhone both have screen resolutions listed as 480x320? For normal use (not watching videos), wouldn't the resolution be 320x480? The same could be said for any monitor or television. The resolution on most computer moniters is 1024x768. But, say I tilt mine sideways to view a video. Would the screen resolution still be 1024x768, or would it become 768x1024?

I ask this only for a sense of standardization. Shouldn't we measure resolution on an "this is how you use it" axis? Yes, you watch videos in a sideways manner, but the way the home screen is presented as well the seemingly default position for most applications fits the 320x480 rationale. Comments? Please? Gyrferret (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, bear in mind WP:TALK please... I don't really see how this discussion will lead to improving the article... _TalkIslander 09:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the iPod Nano and the iPod Touch have resolutions that are taken with the product sideways. I believe that there should be at least some uniformity across all screen resolutions with the product used in the "default" position. Gyrferret (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the maximum resolution is what matters. Keeps it consistent with monitors.Mdenk (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Apple web page http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html lists the display as 640 x 480 pixels

Paragraph order in Third-party Applications section

In the Third-party Applications section, shouldn't the paragraph describing Apple's SDK come before the paragraph about jail-breaking?VisvambaNathan (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Since the SDK came after the jailbreak method, it should actually be after it. (Chronological order) Smiley Barry 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that says we should cover everything in chronological order. And given that the numbers of jailbroken iPod touches are likely a tiny percentage compared to touches running SDK-based apps, we should give precedence to the SDK mention. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the number could well be over, since version 2.2 (the latest) can be jailbroken like any other, and so people could enjoy the SDK apps and jailbreak apps. Also, I am certain the jailbreak part was there before the SDK paragraphs, so why not just put it after it, as with 99% of all sensible content additions on Wikipedia? (You don't go and put new information above old information, right? Even more likely you don't do it when the new subject was created after the old. Just like history sections.)Smiley Barry 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

how much

which is better ipod touch gen 1 or ipod touch gen 2

wats is the difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.60.56 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia - please take a look at WP:TALK _TalkIslander 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Who knows--92.10.96.93 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: section about operating system

I think there should be a separate section of what OS the iPod touch runs (which is the iPhone OS. Photographerguy (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Storage capability

I realize this might not belong here, but I didn't see it mentioned in the article. Is it possible to upgrade the flash memory of an iPod Touch? I am looking to get one but they are ridiculously overpriced (as are most Apple devices), so I will likely have to get the 8GB one. Is it possible to expand this later or will it always be 8GB? TJ Spyke 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It will always be 8Gb. _TalkIslander 09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No and please remember this is NOT a forum. Stealth (talk)

Ipod Touch 1st Generation and Second Genration

Shouldn't there be a to sections speaking about both generations or the information isn't there yet? Agent Mr (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Permanent state of semi-protection

I have noticed that this article is being vitually permanently semi-protected. Yet I don't really see any evidence of "excessive vandalism" during the brief period the article was unprotected last time. Essentially there were just a couple of vandalizing edits made from the same IP address. I doubt that this constitutes excessive vandalism and would like to note that keeping the article protected all of the time inhibits its progress by potentially preventing good, constructive edits from coming.Yavrey (est vrai) (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

There are a couple of reasons why I believe there's no need for a criticism section here. First, Apple iPod touch is a consumer product, not a feature film or a scientific theory for which reception by the public/peers/critics are vitally important. Yes, consumer goods sometimes spark a public outcry, which may warrant an appropriate mentioning. But including all sorts of critical remarks? Think about a section like this for a popular/widespread product, say, 'Microsoft Windows' or 'Toyota Corolla'. Folks at Wikipedia would probably need to buy another server just to store a humongous 'List of Things People Don't Like About [whatever the product is]'.

Secondly, a Criticism section is very prone to POV of various kinds. Let's not forget that the primary objective of any Wikipedia article is to inform the reader about the subject in a positive, not normative sense. For example, the article already metions that iPod touch users had to pay $20 for the iPhone OS ver.2. This is a fact. Putting it under the Criticism banner turns it into a POV instance because it is now implied that Apple did something bad. Stating that Google Maps differ in the iPod touch and the iPhone versions of the device would be stating a fact (if it's indeed true, of course). On the other hand, treating this as a critical remark is equivalent to saying that this is wrong and shouldn't be this way. Finally, the very fact that a critical remark appeared on Gizmodo (or Cnet, or somewhere else) by itself does not make it more legitimate than a comment you or I can make --- if you read the legalese of those sites, it is stated that views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavrey (talk • contribs) 22:44, March 16, 2009

There are plenty of articles for consumer products that contain a "criticism", "controversy" or similarly named section. Just look at iPod Shuffle, Hummer, Ford Explorer, even iPhone (among many other examples) to see what I am talking about. Hell, there are even articles like Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Facebook, etc.

I decided to reinstate the "Criticism" section as an editor had cut out the majority of it for being unsourced (some of which actually did have sources), and someone else decided to move the little piece that remained to another part of the article. I added more sources to fix such concerns. Scootey (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that people make a one off payment when they buy an iPod touch, but make monthly payments when they buy an iPhone right? So it isn't quite correct to say iPhone users get the applications for "free". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of this... criticism of that... Yeah, sure there're lots of critical remarks all over the Wikipedia. Does their presence somehow invalidate the reasons (above) that I gave for not having a dedicated criticism section?Yavrey (est vrai) (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yavrey, this is absolute and COMPLETE rubbish, and I don't buy a word of it (ANY of the reasons for not having a crit section). If a product is being criticized, you can by all means cite those criticisms, EVEN if those points are mentioned in other article sections. (or else there is simply no way to send the reader the message that there are criticisms - like with any other article - and with the logic presented here, you could also justify doing it the other way around, and REMOVE all the points from the other sections, and pile them all into a Crit section. Except that it makes more sense for obvious criticisms to go in a Criticisms section) And it doesn't matter if a particular element (that multiple reputable sources are blasting) makes it "seem" like a company did something bad: that's NOT what criticisms are even supposed to point out, unless the sources said something about "badness" too... All they say is that X element is being criticized, because it is, and people have the right to know about it, and likewise cite it in an article. As with every.... other.... crit section.... on Wikipedia. This is out of this world. You guys are trying to keep a stone-wall up against having a Crit section (no matter WHAT it contains) both here and on the IPhone page, and I can't see it staying up very long at all.--Dario D. (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario D: whether you buy it or not is up to you. It's perfectly ok to criticize things "to send the reader the message that there are criticisms", provided you write in your personal blog or something. However, when writing an encyclopedia artcle, the existence of a Web page which documents someone's opinion on something does not make it a valid reference to strengthen a generalizing claim (that there are criticisms).Yavrey (est vrai) (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I answered the Wikipedia:Third opinion request at Talk:IPhone#Call For Criticisms. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone 2.0 Software Update date

Hello, I saw that the date for this update was changed by an anonymous IP user to July 11, 2008, and changed back to July 15. The iPhone OS version history page supports the July 11 date, as does this Apple press release. The Wikipedia iPhone OS page also lists a security patch (iPhone OS 1.1.5) that was released on July 15 for iPod Touch users who chose not to upgrade to 2.0. Based on all this, I think July 11 is the correct date to list in the "Description" section. LovesMacs (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ZuneHD Related and See Also

Zune HD should be added as "related" and "See also". Links to ipod touch are included on the Zune HD page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.141.166 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of "See also". There are many, many competing products for the iPod touch. We are not going to list every one of them in this article. As for what editor do with the Zune HD article, frankly we could care less. groink 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo issue, version 3927

One of the editors are animate about the non-free issue, and therefore keeps trying to change the photo to hide the copyrighted photo of the software. We decided a long time ago (read the archives) that it is essential to show the home screen. Despite the many attempts to create one, we decided to go against Wikipedia's policy regarding use of imagery based on fair use (Wikipedia's policy is more strict than U.S. fair use laws,) and use the official Apple graphic. We decided to do this just for the English Wikipedia because it is based in the United States, and therefore it is all right under U.S. fair use laws to use it. Seeing the dissenting editor is French, he could not do this on the French Wikipedia, which is probably why this logic isn't registering (this is not an insult to the French - read his talk page.) groink 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Undo last modification

I can't undo it because the page is semi-protected. I think you know why I ask it (check the modification of Ben420 at 22:45, 1 June 2009). Thanks Looler (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aspect ratio fix

Just like with the iPhone, upright, the resolution is 320x480, for an aspect ratio of 2:3, as commonly defined as width:height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iioooio79879 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem using this method is that when a video is ripped to run on an iPhone or iPod touch, the ripper must use 480x320. If you go around telling people that the iPhone is 320x480, you're going to see a whole lot of mis-formatted rips. You've got to keep in mind that although the phone is operated in a portrait format, the videos can only play in landscape - and videos played at 480x320. This is why, when it comes to resolution, you can't go around applying cell phone standards to a device like the iPhone or iPod touch. groink 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Add Serbian page to links

Please add this page as sr=iPod Touch to the list.

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_Touch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovanpetrovic (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. groink 09:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone OS. I have found errors.

I have noticed an error in the iPod Touch Wikipedia Article and would like to request someone with high enough privileges to fix this. I have found the following errors.

1. It says somewhere (Can't Remember Where): "iPhone OS 3.0 update will unlock Bluetooth" Where it should say: "iPhone OS 3.0 update has unlocked Bluetooth"

Fixed --Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Under specifications: "current version 2.2.1" Where it should say: "current version 3.0"

Fixed --Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please fix these errors as I dont have privileges to edit semiprotected acticles. Thank-You

Techinical specifications Reference

This page appears to have a summary of Iphone and Ipod touch technical specifications. It should be included as an additional reference.

http://petrolstone.uuuq.com/iphonespecs.php