Talk:IPhone X

IPhone_X#History

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Williamzabet (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Williamzabet. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbartner (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mbartner.

Generation and place in Succession Line

Should we not refer to the iPhone X as the 12th generation iPhone and have it as the iPhone 8 (and iPhone 8 Plus) successor?. Number wise 8 and 10 follow each other and even Apple themselves are saying the iPhone X is a "next generation iPhone". To have the iPhone X on the same generation and "related" to the iPhone 8 is daft as it's a comletely NEW device. Superdry19 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Superdry19: No, the iPhone 8 has many of the same internals as the X, and Apple's slogan for the X is "A new generation of iPhone". So I really don't think that it should be regarded as the successor. Darius robin (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: I massively disagree with this as the iPhone 8 and iPhone X are NOT the same devices, while the chip insde might be the same the whole design and even numbering (8 and 10) indicate that the iPhone X is a successor to the iPhone 8, I mean yeah the 6/6+, 6s/6s+, 7/7+, 8/8+ are the same phone and generation this just looks stupid having the 8, 8+ and X classed as 11th generation iPhones. How can THREE devices be on the same level, it doesn't make sense. You said it yourself Apple are calling the iPhone X "A new generation of iPhone" so they are clearly classing it as a new device and completely seperate from the iPhone 8 lineup. Superdry19 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Superdry19: Sorry, I meant Apple’s slogan for the 8 is "A new generation of iPhone". Could you cite a reliable source to show that iPhone X is the successor? Darius robin (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Superdry19: The iPhone X is not the successor to the X, the X is the main flagship model. Itsquietuptown (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Iphone X is not a phablet!

Yes an iphone x is an "phablet-sized" phone but is not a phablet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.239.146 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Stop changing "smartphone" to "phablet". Smartphone is correct. Phablet may also be correct, but smartphone isn't wrong, and people don't know what a phablet is. Natureium (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And stop reverting without discussing. Your edit summary claims don't hold water. Natureium (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Natureium We already had a discussion about this at Talk:Phablet, you can have a look there. We can't keep discussing every time a person disagrees with it. Darius robin (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. You haven't discussed this on the relevant article's talk page, and you can't expect people to go searching all of wikipedia to find the opinion of others. Whether it could possibly be described as a phablet doesn't mean that it's the most relevant adjective. It's possibly a phablet, but irrefutably a smartphone. The manufacturer calls it a smartphone, 99.99% of sources describe it as a smartphone, and it 100% fits the definition of a smartphone. Natureium (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence shouldn’t introduce the iPhone X as a tablet. Look at the page for iPhone 8 and 8 Plus. They aren’t introduced as phablets, even though the 8 is the same size as the X and the plus is even larger, especially in terms of width. It’s just weird to call it as a phablet, especially when everyone talks about it as being a smartphone. Ramzuiv (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Taking a few opinions. Mrjulesd Hayman30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darius robin (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just saying, what you think, what you think everyone is thinking, or how you feel about it being called a phablet is absolutely irrelevant. This ain't a vote, what the sources say is the key here. So comments like "I think it's weird to call it a phablet" or "I don't think people know what a phablet is" does not contribute to the discussion. Hayman30 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You "ain't" being civil here, and WP:OFCOURSE. And notice how I mentioned how sources describe it? It is irrefutably a smartphone.

Also, while !vote is an essay, WP:CANVASS is a policy. Natureium (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: X is bigger than 8 Plus who is a phablet. Also, we have sources for phablet. We should retaure that. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And I have hundreds of sources saying the iPhone X is a smartphone. Did you read what I wrote above? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Natureium: Pointless. Every device is called a smartphone in general. To be more specific, we call it a phablet. If you see, 99.99% sources call the 8 Plus a smartphone, but to be exact, it is a phablet. Darius robin (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

According to who? Apple is the one who designed and manufactured it, and they don't call it a phablet. And phablet isn't an official designation, it's just a description. Natureium (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

iPhone X have the phablets's characteristics + sources. There are no importance if Apple recognize that or not. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30: stop now, there are consensus here. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There isn't consensus. Consensus means people are generally in agreement. You are ignoring what others are saying. And "phablet" is slang. There are no mainstream dictionaries using the word phablet. Smartphone is an actual word, an accurate description, and appropriate for an encyclopedia. Natureium (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: --Panam2014 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC) @Natureium: please stop the obstruction. Apple's opinion is a primary source, so reliable secondary source said that it is a phablet. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not how sources work. Primary sources are fine for technical data. Any secondary sources would be getting the data directly from apple. People aren't getting out rulers and calipers and measuring phones themselves. Primary sources are avoided because they could be biased. Apple's technical data is not biased. Natureium (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Natureium: having the term in a dictionnary is not obligatory to put the term here. Same as Note 8. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand that sentence because the grammar is atrocious. I'm sure it's another fruitless claim though, so I'm not going to try. Natureium (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Natureium: You have no argument to reject the word who is used by reliable sources. Also, Primary sources are fine for technical data. nope. It is only Apple's opinion. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to help you understand any more, because you obviously aren't going to consider any views other than your own. Do not use my lack of further response to try to falsely claim that you have a consensus. Natureium (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is called leave rage. You have no argument to deny what the sources say so you are blocking the process. That's enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: And this is lack of knowledge, you have no knowledge of how sources work. It doesn’t go by what is marketed by Apple (smartphone), we categorize the phone by how it actually is (phablet).Darius robin (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin:Things do not work that way. If Apple says (primary source) that it's a smartphone, and the secondary sources say it's a phablet, one must write that it's a phablet. Pretexts Apple's opinion or the absence of the term in the dictionary are not admissible arguments. It is time to put the term back. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: No, please don't put it back until a consensus is reached, here on the article's talk page. Any more of this sort of disruptive editing and you will be reported to ANI. Hayman30 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30:That's enough two-balls threats, coming from a neophyte contributor. Stop now. Know that I am an experienced contributor unlike you, and so I know the rules. I did not violate any of them. For the rest, and if you begin by justifying your refusal to write a term attested by the sources of quality. Nothing of my edit are disruptive, contrary to your obstruction. But WP:RfC is the solution. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you threatening violence? That's completely inappropriate. I can't understand most of your sentences, which isn't helped by you trying to sound smart by using big words incorrectly. ANI is the appropriate place for your constant disruptive behavior, but if you want people to comment on it, I'm sure you could find some willing. Since you brought up being a veteran and knowing the rules, I'll point out your two blocks from Wikipedia for the same thing and compare your 5,000 edits to Hayman30's 24,000. The talk page is not for personal attacks, it's for discussing the article, which you refuse to do productively. Natureium (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Natureium: stop now, it is very ridiculous. ANI is the right place for your constant disruptive behavior, but if you want to find it, you can find some willing. Obstruction is a disruptive behavior like the wild accusations of your comrade. Accusing a contributor abusively of personal attack and disruptive editing is a disruptive behavior. Threatening to make an ANI is not a constructive attitude. For the rest, you have not given a valid argument to reject content from quality sources and in the end you leave the discussion to obstruct it. I no longer violate the 3RR so I have not breached any rule now. Talk page is not for obstruction. Finally, it's off topic but seen that you mention it: I was blocked 3 days in 3 years, and him for 3 days in 1 year. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

The chassis is made of stainless steel - not the front and back. And glass doesn't cover the 'aluminium', it covers the previously mentioned stainless steel. 122.107.239.239 (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we add info about drop tests/how breakable the phone is?

A good amount of reliable sources have been reporting on how breakable the new phone is. The issue has been reported on here, here,and here, amongst other places throughout the internet. Is it worth adding this info to the page? Where would it be most appropriate to put information like this in the article, if at all? Comatmebro (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"The"

Hey everybody! So, first off, a copy of my edit summary: "Inappropriate use of "the" in "the iPhone". We hear "phone" and think "the" should be applied for proper grammar, as you would say "Use the phone", but it's a proper noun and "the" isn't correct. "Use Microsoft Office" is another example". Secondly, please see the Wikipedia policy on the matter. LocalNet (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is currently under debate at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Bring_MOS:COMPUTING_back_into_line_with_MoS_and_reality. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case nevermind for now. We'll keep as is until that discussion ends. LocalNet (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Inflated language/puffery in article lead

Darius robin is determined[1][2] to keep the "showcase futuristic technologies" language in the article lead. This is not appropriate for the voice of Wikipedia and contravenes MOS:PUFF. It is best omitted entirely as we cannot even say these listed technologies are new, or emerging. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

LocalNet You were one of the latest users to edit the lead, care to share your opinion please? Darius robin (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I separated the "futuristic" sentence from the next one that mentions the examples like Face ID, wireless charging, OLED. So, both sentences do not relate now. Darius robin (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So what would the "futuristic" technologies be that Wikipedia is referring to? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

*For full transparency: I was in the middle of writing a reply and hit save. I then received a message of an edit conflict, and wanted to check what had changed. I was already here writing a comment prior to receiving Darious' notification. I think that's important to state for full disclosure and record-keeping.* As for my actual comment: iPhone X is Apple's answer to the future of the smartphone. Its slogan and its entire marketing campaign promotes that thinking, and Apple even launched standard iPhone 8 models to give an "end" to the last technologies. If the current wording isn't appropriate, I believe it should be slightly rewritten to clearly state that it's Apple's promotional campaign. Also, for iPhone, these are all new technologies, even if other devices on the market feature them, which carries a sense of WP:OSE. LocalNet (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a template {{editconflict}}. I don't see how the OSE essay quite applies and them being new to iPhone doesn't make them futuristic. OLED displays have been in phones since 2008. This[3] is even worse, now we are outright saying that Apple has futuristic technologies. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the template. I fully agree with everything you're saying, but the device is still marketed and centered around what Apple refers to as futuristic. The way the page is currently, however, is OK for me, as it clearly states that it's Apple's thinking. And by the way, Darius robin you're not supposed to continue editing the live page until this discussion is complete. I remember telling you this a few months back in another article as well. Your edits can quickly constitute edit warring, which is why we have a discussion to reach a common consensus rather than everyone making edits to the live page continuously. LocalNet (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I’m pretty sure Face ID and the bezel-less display could be called futuristic. I reverted your edits just to gather consensus—I don’t really care which way it’s put—with LocalNet, as he had previously edited that word. Darius robin (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Facial recognition and bezel-less display are not new or unique. Even if it were new technology, calling it "futuristic" in the voice of Wikipedia is clearly against MOS:PUFF. Take a look at this list of terms to avoid there. Futuristic, like those, is not a neutral, factual term. It's along the lines of "innovative". Thanks for working with me on this. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Samsung has had facial recognition and very limited bezels on its newest devices, so it's definitely not "futuristic". And it is promotional language not suited for neutral-based content. Its original written statement in the lead was against the manual of style, so I am happy we have a revised version now. LocalNet (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Issues - green line

Cozinsky added and Hayman30 reverted[4] mention of a "green line" issue which was cited to two sources, on the basis that it is not widespread. To me if it is notable enough for multiple news articles it is notable enough for this article. Omitting it strikes me as possibly whitewashing. In a quick search I found actually quite a number of mentions of this. Whether or not it is "widespread", it is receiving coverage. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Hello again. We mention only widespread issues. "To me if it is notable enough". Your opinion does not matter, rules do. It doesn’t matter which or how many publications report it, we only mention widespread issues. That’s all. Do not add it back until we reach a conclusion (again). For further information, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 158#iOS 11, it’s basically the same dispute. Darius robin (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: This is not in keeping with WP:DUE (where the notability guidelines direct us for content issues) which is the primary measure for inclusion in an article. That dispute resolution case was not conclusively closed, it is highly disingenuous of you to imply or state that it was - it was closed as "failed". Also the moderator in that dispute, for as long as they considered it, seemed to center on whether those particular sources were reliable. In no way do I see anything there or anywhere else that discounts the validity of numerous reliable secondary sources as deserving WP:DUE mention. That's fundamental to Wikipedia, we report on secondary sources. The rules do indeed matter and it clearly does matter "which and how many publications report it." Please provide some reference or precedent for something being "widespread" as the standard for inclusion in an article. A murder isn't widespread yet if it receives significant coverage it is worthy for inclusion. Etc. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Ok, you can leave the DRN case, that was just for reference. Many people face issues with their devices. If we keep mentioning every petty issue, we’re gonna be writing a very very long section, lots of issues are reported by the media, that doesn’t mean we have to mention them all. Take for instance that unresponsive screen issue. That was widespread and almost all users faced it, so we included it, not the case here. So you say that a mass murder is widespread? That’s a completely different case there. Darius robin (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This green line may or may not be a trivial issue not fit for inclusion, but now the principle has been raised of whether widespread coverage in reliable sources is the standard, or coverage of a widespread issue is. I think we should clarify this. Not every issue issue that merits inclusion in an article is "widespread". Some things that are very significant and receive widespread coverage could be very limited in scope or single incidents. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: And how do you classify which issue to include and which not to? It can’t be personal choice. We can’t keep issues saying "A limited number of users" or "Some users". That’s just silly. Darius robin (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: Again I think by WP:DUE it has to be based on media coverage. Discounting that coverage as being silly is a "personal choice". The Pixel 2 article is full of issues (mostly related to the XL) that only affect some users yet it would be whitewashing and negligent to omit them as they are clearly being reported in the news. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't decide what's newsworthy and what's not, I'll give you that, but when sources explicitly state "the issue seems very limited", I wouldn't consider it to be worthwhile at all on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't merely re-report the news. Hayman30 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM cuts both ways. Normally I am strongly opposed to efforts to include trivial news stories in articles because they upset the balance and fail the 10 year test. However, here we are documenting something that is intrinsically new and unfolding. The entire context for the article is essentially right now. I think years from now, someone interested in the iPhone X will be interested in problems at the launch. It's part of the story of the device. The Pixel 2 (XL) article may have too many tidbits of transient information strung out (or it may really have that many problems) but I think here we have something a little meatier especially considering that Apple isn't known for manufacturing defects or launch problems. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: The Pixel 2 thing is a different story. All those problems relate to one central issue: that cheap LG P-OLED display. These X issues are all spread out about different minor and petty issues relating to different parts of the device. Maybe we could cut out some minor issues from the Pixel article to balance the weight? Darius robin (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: I count 4 screen-related (if touch tracking is screen-related) and 6 other. The only one I would obviously trim is the charger issue which seems superfluous. The others could be condensed a little bit into paragraphs or expanded but I don't think should be cut. If the information turns out to be less relevant in the future it can always be trimmed but right now we are documenting the devices as they exist and unfold. Again, I think it is pertinent to someone looking at the history of these devices in the future. Actually the charger issue on Pixel seems relevant after looking at the news story itself. Our wording may not capture the full idea. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to say the more I look at the problems listed in the Pixel 2 article I think the depth of coverage is totally appropriate and necessary to present a picture of the launch. Seems like the same should apply here even if there isn't a flurry of problems. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Bug in making image face to the left

I tried adding File:IPhone X dots projection for Face ID (224631).jpg, with "thumb left" stuff added, but it always ends up pushing the timeline of models template no matter where I place the image, even if in the History section. Help! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anyplace to put the image that would not be interfered with by the templates. Also I am concerned that this is not really useful; it doesn't show much and isn't on par with the overall quality of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The image is supposed to illustrate the lack of home button. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how to caption this image well. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's really not a good quality picture (lighting, composition, etc.) and illustrating the lack of a home button is accomplished by the existing high quality image in the infobox. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, we have a Wikimedia Commons for iPhone X. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Face ID privacy issues should be on the Face ID page

The Face ID privacy concerns should be on the Face ID page because we are talking about the phone in general, not just Face ID. Too much text on the lead is about Face ID privacy concerns. Itsquietuptown (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Itsquietuptown: Wait, there's a Face ID page? Darn it, I forgot to check that when I was editing it in. I see your point. For the time being, this is still the first-generation Face ID product, so I still think it warrants inclusion in the article and lead, but it definitely can be incorporated into the standalone article and shortened here. I'll see what I can do about it a little later. :) LocalNet (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I've fixed the Face ID page so that it contains, at the very least, the same information that's in this article about it, in addition to whatever else is notable on its own, but one thing I have noticed as I have been researching and writing is how much attention the Face ID feature has been getting. As the first product with Face ID, aren't the issues/limitations with one of its principal features quite notable? Isn't that the reason why the iPhone 7 article has info on the headphone jack loss, despite that also being missing from iPhone 8 and iPhone X? For my own part, I can only say that I am not at all sure how I would shorten the text, but suggestions are always welcome :) LocalNet (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"Local sales and import taxes"

Marketing professor here. I dont usually contribute to Wikipedia, so I dont know the etiquette, therefore excuse any protocols I might be overlooking. I specifically work with pricing, and I can assure you that the prices of the iPhone in different markets has nothing to do with "local sales and import taxes." Prices merely reflect how much Apple thinks people are willing to pay. You perfect example of Canada vs the U.S. clearly showcases this. Both countries are part of NAFTA, the North American trade agreement. Products can move freely between the regions, and in any case, all iPhones are produced in China. Anyone saying price differentials are a result of import tariffs or cost of shipping is only trying to justify the higher prices (wherever they are). Prices are almost always purely determined by demand. Cost has a minimal role. The only time cost really matters is if you are selling commodity products like potatoes and tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.112.65.30 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! That information is actually based on this source, which explains "Thanks to the usual combination of currency valuations, import fees, and local sales taxes, the most expensive iPhone ever will be even more expensive around the world", mentioning Turkey, Russia, Poland, and Italy as examples. LocalNet (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

207.177.124.233 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Invalid No details, no edit possible. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Face ID

Why is there such a large section regarding Face ID privacy and general concerns in the introductory section to this article? A lot of the information presented, including, but not limited to, an (un-cited) 'hacking incident,' seems to belong in the body of the article. zfJames (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

iPhone X Revision B

There is evidence that an iPhone X Rev B was released in April 2018 with fixes to NFC chip in Japan and China due to some issues with services that required a specific revision to the NFC chip. The main issues were with Suica payment in Japan and NFC and Atadistance did a lot of documentation on the issue and Apple releasing a fixed iPhone X for affected users. The Rev B has a vastly improved NFC chip over the original production of the iPhone X. Anyone want to write up a quick summary of the issue and post it here for the iPhone X?

https://atadistance.net/2018/09/10/the-apple-internal-support-doc-for-iphone-x-nfc-issue-and-meaning/