Talk:iPhone

Edit request from Johnmackay13, 10 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload

"Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi or a wide area GSM or EDGE network, both second-generation (2G) wireless data standards. The iPhone 3G introduced support for third-generation UMTS and HSDPA 3.6,[118] but not HSUPA networks, and only the iPhone 3GS supports HSDPA 7.2.[119] AT&T introduced 3G in July 2004,[120] but as late as 2007 Steve Jobs stated that it was still not widespread enough in the US, and the chipsets not energy efficient enough, to be included in the iPhone.[22][121] Support for 802.1X, an authentication system commonly used by university and corporate Wi-Fi networks, was added in the 2.0 version update.[122]" (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone) should now read:

Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi, a wide area GSM or EDGE network, which are second-generation (2G) wireless data standards, or a HSDPA or UMTS third-generation (3G) network.. The iPhone 3G introduced support for third-generation UMTS and HSDPA 3.6,[118] and the iPhone 4 introduced support for HSUPA networks. Both the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 support HSDPA 7.2.[119] AT&T introduced 3G in July 2004,[120] but as late as 2007 Steve Jobs stated that it was still not widespread enough in the US, and the chipsets not energy efficient enough, to be included in the iPhone.[22][121] Support for 802.1X, an authentication system commonly used by university and corporate Wi-Fi networks, was added in the 2.0 version update.[122]

iPhone 4 soon in Tunisia

according to the official website of orange (http://www.orange.tn/orange-tunisie/cid1468-jeu-concours.html) the iPhone 4 is coming soon (click on the "grand jeu iPhone" tab) can you please update the world map and make Tunisia green? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.244.198 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The iPhone 4 is now officially available in Tunisia..map needs an update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.230.135.45 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Apps - App-Store - App Developement

I think this article should cover or reference the Apps ecosystem and development environment. It might be worth mentioning app development only being allowed on Apple computers and only after purchasing a license. I might be worth mentioning app-approval controversy and potential anti-competitive behavior by Apple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorLarson (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aus

The article mentions that the iPhone can be sim-unlocked in Australia. It should also mention it's sold completely unlocked by apple and its resellers (always - there is no carrier-tied version sold by Apple anywhere in Aus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Common sense and/or Apple Store would probably suffice http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=OTY2ODA2OQ Bernerd (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what common sense means in this context but okay. I'm just worried about the article becoming a list of availability in every country, which would be quite bloated. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Verizon iPhone apparently confirmed (baseless confirmation)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/ts_nm/us_apple_verizon

This should be added somewhere on the page, I think. Mellophonius (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

From your updated wiki article: "The Wall Street Journal stated on October 6, 2010 that a CDMA version of the iPhone 4 would be released 1st quarter 2011 for release to Verizon Wireless."

This is still speculation, as is clear by the quotes from Apple and Verizon.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifVjJ1mLw3KdrxlXv6zxncyyG82wD9IO9PO01?docId=D9IO9PO01

Despite the tail wagging the dog headlines in the NYT and WSJ, there has been no formal announcement from either Apple or Verizon, so as yet, this is still unconfirmed and simply speculation. Agave Anejo (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is further proof that a Verizon iPhone is not possible at this time regardless of the Wall Street Journal's "confirmed" sources. There is a 5 year exclusivity deal between AT&T (Cingular) and Apple that was made in 2007.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-year-iphone-exclusivity-de/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-05-21-at&t-iphone_N.htm

There have been rumors of a Verizon iPhone for years, why does this one all of a sudden deserve credence? I'd remove it myself, but every time I do something like that, I get backlash and a note on my user page about editing stuff --FiveIron (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I ended up making the edit because there seemed to be no objections for over a week. The evidence against (5-year contract with AT&T, no data and voice at the same time) a CDMA iPhone is stronger than for ("reliable sources"), and this has been speculated

since the original iPhone, and has yet to come to fruition. WP:NEWSORG states "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.", even if WSJ is reputable (not disputed). While a mere sentence about an unreleased product is not covered by it, I believe it goes against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL --FiveIron (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this speculation, yet It can't be stated as fact. There have been numerous news outlets that have confirmed VZ iPhone from sources (WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and Fortune). In addition, there have been confirmation from Asian suppliers. Apple and VZ of course don't comment on unofficial news releases. I disagree that the 5-year agreement is stronger evidence. Those agreements aren't written in stone, and in fact have many clauses and stipulations. On a conference call, Apple management stated that it wasn't married to any one carrier and that it could change at anytime. However, they stated Apple chooses to enter exclusive agreements in particular situations where they make the most sense. The original agreement is 4 years old and it's likely that is have been modified multiple times sense. When asked at the D8 conference last summer "if it would make sense to open iPhone to more carriers in the US" Steve Jobs replied along the lines of "maybe" or "it could" ""it might" (can't remember exactly) however this was a stark departure from previous comments from Apple management which defended the decision of exclusivity due to the cooperation if afforded by AT&T to allow visual voicemail, iTunes downloads, App store etc. I think the reports are credible and shouldn't be dismissed but also shouldn't be treated as indisputable fact. I know there have been rumors of VZ iPhone for years, however none of those sources were credible just speculation from pundits and analysts. In contrast, these recent reports originate from highly reputable new organizations that have multiple sources which they have vetted. I follow Apple and the industry very closely being a top-ranked independent analyst and in my opinion it's a done deal. I think it deserves attention. I believe there should be mention of all the reputable news organizations that have independently confirmed the deal. That is pertinent.Tmuller2 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't by chance be Turley Muller, the analyst? Being an analyst who may have a financial interest in this information moving forward, it would so much disqualify you from editing Wikipedia, or even have an opinion on the content. Regardless, mentioning Verizon/Apple without an official announcement - even if Apple is currently manufacturing a CDMA phone in Zimbabwe and 1,000 people at the factory can testify on that, does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a magazine for people to obtain speculation information based on 100 different pieces of information from across the Internet, put together to form what you'd think is a "fact". That would be an attempt to manufacturer a fact. This style of projecting future happenings on a blog may be good for your clients, but this form of practice isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am Turley Muller, analyst, but you have made some assumptions about me. I have no clients, I have NO financial interest in whether something is written/not written on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. My mission is to share analysis and insight to counter what is being passed off as "research" that is actually propaganda in some form. I don't know if you really read what I wrote AT ALL- I clearly stated that an imminent VZ iPhone was NOT a fact and should not be treated as such. I However, it is a fact that WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and Fortune- the most reputable news organizations have all independently confirmed it. That did it happen, that is a fact. Those organizations are putting their reputations on the line. Now can we say it's a fact that there will be a VZ iPhone? Of course not. I wasn't trying to lobby that it should be. I agree with your position completely since there hasn't been official confirmation from VZ or Apple. I was just thinking that the mass of VZ speculation that has gone on since day one is a pertinent part of the iPhone's history, the fact that people have been hoping and waiting.... and waiting.... unsubstantiated reports one after another continued to prove to be false, to the point where now that we have finally got some credible reports, many are quick to dismiss it since they have been hearing that forever already. It doesn't really matter now, we will know in a few weeks for certain, one way or another. Tmuller2 (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A section of the iPhone article should mention the recent news activity surrounding the possible release of an iPhone on Verizon. It doesn't matter if there is an actual release but the large amount of news activity surrounding this is news/history. It seems reasonable to mention major hypes leading to or not leading to a new release. Huper Phuff ^(talk2me) 12:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any recent hype is important; it's speculation that feeds on itself. One pundit revives the issue on a whim, another outlet thinks he knows something, and soon the entire media is reporting on something based on nothing. I find it odd and disconcerting that a moment after saying that we've "been hearing that forever" you seem so confident they'll be an announcement in "the next few weeks," which we've heard for years. I also think that the technical details of different networks may impede the transfer even after the contract has expired, but I could be wrong. (Wikipedians, unlike pundits, admit their fallibility.) It is perhaps noteable to say that the speculation exists in general, but nothing official has surfaced. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are conflating the gold standard of news reporting with everything that is not. (WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and Fortune) each having independently confirmed that VZ arrival early next year (2011). These are old media reporters, not the quasi-media, blogs, pundits, and analysts who were fueling rumors for years. Do you believe the WSJ is reporting something based on nothing? NYT? And I am referring to the news journalists (print edition types) not to be confused with their blogs other content from their website. I am not arguing it's 100% fact, they rarely wrong. Being involved on Wiki, you should try to see that distinction. Have to consider the source. just trying to help. Just as I said three weeks ago.... I am pretty sure there will be an announcement in "the next few weeks." Hot of the press- WSJ & NYT confirm VZ announcement will be 1/11/2011. The speculation finally ends.Tmuller2 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} The line that reads, "Voice control, available only on the iPhone 3GS," should be "Voice control, available on the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4,". Thomas Aylesworth (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

iPhone CF

Information about the iPhone CF (Conflict Free) should be added, which is functional as the "normal" iPhone but in contrast to the standard model does not use materials from conflict regions and thereby does not support child soldiers. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

As mentioned correctly on the List of iOS devices page, the iPhone 4 supports 802.11n wifi on the 2.4ghz band. This could be added to the 'connectivity' part. TumbleCow (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Straight from Apple. Although it's already been added. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

iOS move discussion

There is a discussion about a proposal to move iOS (Apple) to iOS. SeeTalk:IOS_(Apple)#Requested_Move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of iPhone

I think that the criticism of the iPhone should be included in this article. E.g. have a look at the German article:

• the poor working conditions of the guys who built the hardware
• environmental pollution of the production
• security of the software
• restrictions in the App Store (you can't bring other applications to the iphone except you use the app store, which is highly regulated/censored by apple) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.52.201 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can bring some sources to the table for these points and can suggest some suitable content that sounds fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. The battery section is already full of less than notable criticisms unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Erik Veland (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this too, and if you're going to write one, the lack of control over the dictionary (namely swear words) is definitely worth a mention. DanielDPeterson (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I believe the tracking controversy would be worthy of being in this article.66.71.87.182 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Map Update - edit request

Armenia, Tunisia, Vietnam and Costa Rica need to be added to the map per the individual iPhone pages off http://www.apple.com/choose-your-country/. I would do it, but the file is a bloody svg not a png, so I don't know how... Thanks Bernerd (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical inaccuracy

The article says "Apple created the device during a secretive and unprecedented collaboration with AT&T Mobility—Cingular Wireless at the time—at an estimated development cost of US$150 million over thirty months.[6] Apple rejected the "design by committee" approach that had yielded the Motorola ROKR E1" What I'm wondering is which one is it? Was collaborating with a cell phone company when designing the phone "unprecedented", or had a different phone, "the Motorola ROKR E1", already been created through the same process? 99.255.58.85 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It took me awhile to get what you're saying, but it's a good point. I guess what we're trying to say is that the secrecy was unprecedented perhaps, or the collaboration with AT&T and Apple was unprecedented...hmm. The first isn't really true; most of Apple's stuff is secretive. As for the second, yes the two companies had never worked together, but is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks for bring it to our attention, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help :) BTW, I did a bit of research and it appears that it was referring to it being the first time that they collaborated with AT&T (which is only a first for them, not for the industry). It might be best to simply take out the word "unprecedented". (then again, I'm not the most experienced editor out there, which is why I posted here instead of being bold and changing it myself) 99.255.58.85 (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I'll go ahead and do it.

No section On Designer?

That's odd, amazingly there doesn't seem to be any mention of the designer, I can only assume that's deliberate?Twobells (talk)

I have an issue with the non-capitalization

I have an issue with the non-capitalization of the "i" in iPhone, on the page heading. According to what I have learned from all of the people who have reverted my edits on Japanese song titles (I put them with the unusual capitalization and all, but they change them back to capital first letter, and lowercase the rest) that use alternating caps, or unusual lower or uppercase styles for song titles (such as the woman who has two songs, one called Joy, and one called joy, for example), the 'iPhone' title needs to be spelled 'Iphone.' I've had lengthy discussions about this topic with others on wiki, so there needs to be a final say-so on this issue that I can cite as I go around correcting song titles... or, change the iPhone titles to Iphone. Is unusual capitalization, such as with 'iPhone' allowed or not? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Just use the standard or most commonly used capitalization. For this page, it's definitely iPhone. For song titles, use your best judgement on a case-by-case basis. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but when I do, people change it and say "it doesn't matter if that's how it's written on the CD and on the music charts, it's sub-standard, so we have to write it the proper way... blah blah" So since they aren't doing the same to THIS article, they are related. Wiki is supposed to have standards, and I would like to know what they are. 69.237.62.254 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's (all languages) typically require that the first letter be a capital in the title (doesn't matter what article, just how the software is programmed). the proper way is iPhone, so it will be written as IPhone usually, to prevent conflicts with the software. Some people just decide to write Iphone, which is improper. AGiorgio08 ^talk 09:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

New "Controversy" section

In lieu of the recent facts, I propose that a new section based on iPhone controversies should be made. It could contains sections from intellectual property and restrictions. And not to conflict with WP:CRYSTAL, but I sincerely doubt this is going to be the last of the controversies from Apple. Expecially given the fact that they want to use fingerprint ID and facial recognition features in the future. AGiorgio08 ^talk 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)