Talk:IPod/Archive 1

A minor niggle - shouldn't this article be titled iPod, not IPod? -- ChrisO 16:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not if you do the same as IMac. - Mark 16:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tried moving page to iPod but I guess it's impossible because they are basically the same. Can someone find out if it is possible to rename all incorrectly capitalized iApp/iAccessory names? It's getting annoying... -- Applegoddess 21:46, 18 Feb 2004

It's a software issue, Apple. Check out Wikipedia:List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki. Dysprosia 05:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's actually not a software issue... rather a policy choice.

The English language encyclopedia is set not to accept a lowercase character as the first letter of a page title. For example, the articles on eBay and pH are found at EBay and PH respectively. This is a policy choice, not a technical limitation.

Skippingrock

I contemplated moving this to "Apple iPod," similar to Apple iTunes, but then decided against (and moved it back). It is sold as the iPod, not the Apple iPod. cuiusquemodi 21:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Needs Updating

I'm surprised the latest revision of the iPod lineup isn't already put up. 2G mini, cheaper mini, 30 gig ipod photo... Dave 07:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You need to look more closely. They're all there and have been since their release. --rae 17:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oh, I saw some old info and assumed it was all old. I'll delete the stuff or put it in past tense Dave 17:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

All taken care of. Dave 17:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

External links

Several of the "external links" in this article really didn't belong here, in my opinion. I moved some of them to relevant places in the article itself, and then I removed the rest. Just now I reverted someone's edit which put them all back! If we allow fan and commercial web sites to have links from Wikipedia articles, then we're going to have to allow every fan and commercial web site to link from Wikipedia. And fan sites are more likely to become dead links - one of the links which was restored goes to a 404 page. External links should only be to primary sources or extensive background information not easily found elsewhere, or when a fan site is the definitive reference for something (like, say, "The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5"). Here are some other discussions on the topic.

• Links to fan sites
• Wikipedia_talk:External_links#More_restrictive_policy_on_external_linking

- Brian Kendig 18:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to MLAgazine's history of the iPod

Tomhormby 14:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cut-down version of Mac OS X?

A recent edit added this assertion: The basic core operating system of the iPod is a cut-down version of Mac OS X, and incorporates QuickTime. Is that really true? My understanding is that the iPod runs an OS which was written specifically for it, not one which is derived in any way from Mac OS X. And while it is compatible with some file formats which QuickTime recognizes, I don't believe it actually has QuickTime software in it, does it? - Brian Kendig 02:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought someone would jump on me for this ;-) It surprised me too, but it seems to be true. In the latest issue of MacTech[1], which I subscribe to, there is a long and detailed article about reverse engineering the iPod. The upshot is that the iPod's core is OS X using the Pixo UI layer, and it does indeed include QuickTime - the article then goes on to explain how this can be leveraged to actually play QT movies on the iPod screen. Unfortunately MacTech do not publish current articles online until about a year after they've been in the mag, so I can't back this up with a link, but there may be others who can confirm this. Graham 03:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, so the iPod would be running a Mach-O kernel with a BSD like system? I find that _very_ hard to believe, though I haven't read the article. — David Remahl 03:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess what isn't said is what they mean by "cut down". I don't have the article in front of me but I'll re-read it when I get home and see if I can shed any further light.Graham 03:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was wrong, and has been removed. PPOS (PortaLPlayer OS) is the core operating system of the iPod, it is a custom OS designed to make use of the dual cores of the PP5002 Chip that runs the iPod. BKnauss 07:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do you KNOW it is wrong? Why would the author of the MacTech article lie about this? The article explains how to play QT Movies using some basic scripting techniques. The article includes these scripts so you can do this on your own iPod if you want. The scripts (note - not code) are written on the assumption that the OS is OS X, and the WHOLE of QT is available. I haven't yet tried them but I intend to (actually IIRC the article is spread over two issues, I haven't received the next issue yet). Apple haven't said anything about the internals of the iPod, and they have been in charge of its development for a long time since it was handled by PortalPlayer - so it is perfectly possible that they have rewritten/ported the OS to suit themselves. Also, the colour GUI on the Photo iPod has an Aqua look, so elements of Aqua have been added whatever the underlying system might be. In the light of no evidence to the contrary, but some evidence to support it, the iPod's OS could well be OS X in some form. Graham 03:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the iPod is still using the PortalPlayer platform. http://www.portalplayer.com/products/platforms_mediaplayer.html No QuickTime. No Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan 09:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is how you play movies on your iPod Photo [2] [3] AlistairMcMillan 08:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have now had a chance to re-read the MacTech (Vol 20, No4, p.32) article in depth. It was written by a chap called Tim Monroe, who is a member of the QT engineering group at Apple, it says. The article goes on at great length about how he reverse engineered the iPod, and how you can track down files on its disk with names such as mach.sys and mach_krn, and then how the "applications" such as Solitaire turned out to be ROT-13 encoded ASCII scripts in a language called SNOJOB, a variant of SNOBOL. I was writing this up at great length when I suddenly noticed that this was the April issue (my subcription runs notoriously late). There are further clues in the article, such as using the "undocumented" command line argument -af with ls to get the kernel listing - the suggestion is that this stands for "all files", but obviously it doesn't. Hooking up my own iPod I get different results. So it looks like I fell for an elaborate joke, so I'm feeling pretty silly right now! He obviously went to a lot of trouble, with stacks of example code in SNOJOB and even screen shots showing the iPod "playing" a QT movie.... What can I say, I fell for it, and propagated it to WP too - well done Tim, you got me. At least I didn't get as far as typing in all that code heh heh... My apologies to all who have entered into this today - at least the misinformation got jumped on quickly. Sheepishly, Graham 10:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well anyway, some did actually do it a long time ago on one of the old ipods...Lets see if I can find the link...[4]--156.34.221.41 16:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I find the new "Criticism" section in the article to be somewhat biased. It seems like the author believes that Apple has an obligation to open the iPod to music formats which compete with Apple's own, and the wording of this section (especially things like "Apple responded ferociously") seems to imply that Apple is being a bully by not licensing its own file format. To the contrary, I believe that if Apple allowed competitors to sell protected music for the iPod, then competitors would do so - and at a cheaper price than Apple, because the competitors don't have to shoulder the cost of iPod research and development, and this would undercut Apple Music Store sales and possibly spell the end of the iPod. - Brian Kendig 03:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy for you that you think that, but it's not the job of Wikipedia to promote the iPod or look after Apple Computer's bottom line--it's to provide accurate information on the topics covered in articles, and that includes fairly reporting on criticism whether individual contributors agree with it or not. Or would you rather the article confine itself to purring about industrial design and not attempt to discuss criticism at all?

I don't necessarily believe Apple has an "obligation" to open the iPod to other formats, although I do think they've handled the whole thing in an extremely jerkass way which, not incidentally, is the reason I got a Zen Touch recently and not an iPod. Thought experiment: if Microsoft exercised the kind of Politburo-like control over the WMA format that Apple does over AAC/iTunes/the iPod, would it be sufficient for the WMA article to mention in passing that Microsoft is not legally obligated to open anything up to anybody, or would it be appropriate to talk about the inevitable controversy that such a policy would engender entirely apart from any legal issues? I think the question answers itself.

In any event, my opinion on the controversies I wrote about is utterly unimportant, and irrelevant to the fact that Apple's business practices with regard to the iPod have engendered criticism and that that criticism is important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article on the subject. If you feel the need to leaven the section by including the official company line on each of the controversies covered therein, by all means do so, although I hardly think that such an otherwise-glowing article needs any more sugar ladled into it as it is. --Paul 06:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paul, I don't think Brian is saying the section on criticism shouldn't be there, but rather, he doesn't like the way it is written. I do find the section slightly slanted. Most of it is ok, but there are certain things, like the use of words like "ferocious" (was Apple's response any stronger than usual?), and taking every opportunity to mention facts like Apple documentation not mentioning Real's hack being broken in the last update (obviously trying to insinuate something, although what, I can't be certain) or the "fact" that the iPod "retails for significantly more than some competing products with similar specifications" (similar? as in plays music and is about the same size?).

Also, some things are misleading or just doesn't make sense. For example, the section concludes with the remark that because users with WMA collections and an iPod will have to keep two collections or be "forced" to convert everything to AAC, this will encourage them to buy Apple. Huh? Seems to me some users will be encouraged to buy a WMA compatible player. Not to mention, why are they forced to convert to AAC? A reasonable thing to do is convert everything to MP3, which will play on (as far as I know) every player (even Sony's now).

In any case, I will fix these things and some other things. I think most of it is fine, so let's see if Brian agrees that the section (after my edits, for example) is NPOV. --Chan-Ho Suh 07:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem witha criticism section, as long as upholds a neutral point of view. By the author's own admission his own point of view is not neutral, and as a result it would be very hard, though certainly not impossible, to report any criticism neutrally. One thing I do think is important to note, especially in the light of the microsoft analogy above, is that AAC is an open standard whereas WMA is not. It's Apple's encryption/DRM that is not open, just as WMA's encryption is not open. I'm still unsure whether Apple's strategy is the right one - it does give one pause for thought especially in the longer run. Allowing WMA to become the dominant format due to shorter term concerns does seem to be an undesirable outcome to me, but then again I know very little about the business issues involved. I feel it's important to (neutrally) report these criticisms/concerns, provided neutrality is maintained. Graham 08:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary or wise to add a paragraph of tu quoque criticism on Microsoft, unless it's also appropriate to add a similar paragraph about Apple in, say, the Windows Media Player article. This is an article about the iPod, not Microsoft, and while it's appropriate to mention Microsoft's (deservedly, I'm sure we can all agree) controversial practices for purposes of providing context, I think any substantive discussions of it belong in one or more of the many Wikipedia articles that already criticize MS in detail, and referenced via a link. I hope this is a compromise we can all support. --Paul 20:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was initially disturbed by Graham's insertion of the Microsoft material, but then I realized that much of the criticism of iPod, iTunes, etc., made comparisons with Microsoft. So I think it's fine to mention Microsoft, as long as it is for the purpose of describing the criticisms. For example, link to some articles that make the Microsoft comparisons, and write some brief sentences explaining why Apple's supposed lock-in strategy bears resemblance, according to some critics, to past Microsoft practices. The material you snipped should be introduced only if it can be modified in such a way. --Chan-Ho Suh 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The edits people have made are good. I just tried some more edits to the section, moving some things around - anyone, feel free to hack it up if you're not satisfied. Paul, if you feel that any part of the article is POV, please feel free to edit it to bring it closer to NPOV, rather than trying to balance negative POV against positive POV. - Brian Kendig 17:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the out-of-place criticism of Microsoft with a link, for the reasons I explain above. Other than that the only big problem I have with the current version is that it misleadingly implies that the iPod simply doesn't play ball with Microsoft's DRM scheme, when in fact it won't play WMA files at all, with or without DRM. (I'm personally familiar with this because I'm the guy I described in my example that someone took out: I have a big library of unprotected WMA files that I use with my solid state player, which meant that if I wanted to get an iPod I'd have had to either convert or junk the whole thing.) That has nothing to do with iTunes or DRM, but it's still really annoying--and, I might add, entirely in keeping with the brilliant NIH strategy that has taken Apple from 20 percent of the PC market to 3 percent. I'm far from being the only person who complains about this, and it seems like there should be room for it under the "Criticism" rubric.

Other than that, I'm mostly satisfied with the compromise. --Paul 20:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree it should be pointed out that the iPod doesn't play WMA files (protected or unprotected), but I do not like how you have edited that part. I think your edit makes it less clear that the reason you can't frequent other online music stores is that they mainly use DRM-protected WMA. That was clearer before your edit. Also, you have reintroduced your error of saying that those who want access to iTunes catalog must buy an iPod. That is simply false, since you can burn the songs to a CD which will play in your car's CD player or whatnot. And of course, you can play it on your computer(s). --Chan-Ho Suh 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good point. --Paul

While iPod doesn't play WMA itself, I think the windows version of iTunes will batch convert imported WMA files that the user has so that they can be played on an iPod (Correct me if this is wrong - I only use the Mac version). Obviously this isn't the same, but may be worth mentioning since I guess most people with an iPod will be using iTunes, and so this feature does offer something to those with a large WMA library. In the context of the "format wars" this approach is logical, if not exactly ideal. Graham 07:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. The windows version does convert WMA to AAC. --Chan-Ho Suh 12:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, if AAC is an open standard and it's easy to create unprotected AAC files for the iPod, I'm curious to know why there are no players from Creative, Samsung, Archos, iRiver, or any of the other major manufacturers that can play plain-vanilla AAC or M4A files, DRM issues aside. I would think that this would be a niche that manufacturers would be more than happy to fill--especially the ones that make solid state players, which could easily be marketed as iPod companions. I'm not trying to imply anything or be critical; I'd genuinely like to know and can't find anything about it. If there's a reason, it should probably be mentioned either here or in a related article. --Paul

I don't know why you're so skeptical. A simple Google search should show you that AAC is an open standard and "it's easy to create unprotected AAC files for the iPod". I know from personal experience you can easily, for example, convert between AAC and MP3 using iTunes. --Chan-Ho Suh 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a good reason for the omission of AAC from these other players, other than maybe not wanting to bother with the hassle of supporting many formats. The iPod does support quite a number of formats compared to the others (excepting of course the crucial WMA). I notice Archos doesn't even want to support anything beyond MP3, WMA, and WAV.

There's really no reason for manufacturers to support anything beyond what the Archos does. After all, most people are happy with MP3, and like it or not, it has become a standard. Also, as long as WMA is supported, they can frequent non-iTunes stores online. The manufacturers that want to win the DRM battle, like Sony, will push their own formats, but only Apple or Microsoft can hope to win that battle. --Chan-Ho Suh 22:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

iPod dosnt support WMA because WMA==Microsoft, and apple dosnt do microsoft without a big reason. It supports AAC because AAC is apples baby and as a company mandate all their products support it. The reason other MP3 players dont support AAC is because its Apple and only apple... its not a mandate from the masses to support it so why put it in? ----racter 09:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)[[User:Ben Knauss]

--156.34.37.60 01:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Harmony

Is it worth it to point out that although Apple released the firmware upgrade that disabled Harmony AAC files on November 18 the story didn't break until December 14. [5] [6]

iPod shuffle

I started to edit the entry to introduce the new iPod shuffle [7], but that's easier said than done, since it trickles through the rest of the page, since the iPod shuffle is such a different beast, and is actually more similar to non-iPod players (it's not hard-drive-based, it doesn't use a scroll wheel, it doesn't use Firewire, etc). I'm thinking it's different enough to put on it's own page instead instead of the big re-write this page needs to accomodate it (then again, such a rewrite may eventually be needed). Thoughts? -- Kaszeta 20:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It already has its own page: iPod shuffle. - Brian Kendig 01:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Models

Just separated out the distinct models (iPod, iPod mini, iPod U2 Special Edition, iPod photo and iPod shuffle) from the different iPod generations. It was getting confusing having them all mixed in. While I think the iPod U2 and the iPod photo are really just enhanced 4G iPods, the Apple site lists them as separate. -- 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

White Earbuds

I put in a section about the ipods included earphones, but Austin Hair thought it was "imbecilic, repetitive, and thoroughly pointless". The first one is just a child like insult. The one who is really imbecilic is the one who wrote the comment. And it's not pointless, because I feel the ipods earbuds are an important part of the iPods style. Saying the "the line's distinctive white", doesn't fully explain the significance of the earbuds. Reub2000 02:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything. And the user who objected has edited the article in over a week. So I'm adding it back in. Reub2000 11:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was the full text of the section:

All iPods come with white earphones. These earphones and their white cord are a symbol of the iPod. Even if the iPod is being caried in a pocket or bag by the listener, it can still be recognized by the white earphones. Many other manufac tures make white earphones or canal phones. While these work with other devices, they are intended to replace the iPods white earphones.

Judge for yourself. A.D.H. (t&m) 20:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Should we allow competing models in the "See Also" area?

I mean, competition is business related... and would be better if people linked to a general DAP article rather than other players (as articles should stay specific). What do you think? --Mrmiscellanious 23:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it's not so much competition but rather providing users with access to information on similar devices! All the other DAPs have similar links and no one has complained. --Madchester 00:10, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, even pages for bands have links to other bands with similar styles and influences. Radiohead has links to Blur, Muse, Pink Floyd etc; Coldplay has links to Travis and Echo And The Bunnymen. A lot of bands in the same genre have links to one another, even if they were "rivals" . --Madchester 05:05, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Size of article (32KB at writing)

The article is 32 KB to long, as of writing. I'm new, and I don't have much time to practice in the sandbox beacause of school, so here is what I will suggest for others to do. I hope that's alright with you.

Would removing the photos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod-internals.jpg, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/Image:Lightmatter_ipodvsmini.jpg, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod3g.jpg help? In my opinion they don't really add anything important to the article. Internal components could have cropped pictures with a scale imbedded in the photos to show their relative size. Including a scale might also make finding the absolute measurments of the components easier, althought I see no reason why detailed technical specifications should be included in the article.

Overall, I'm of the opinion that this site has had a lot of contributions form Apple fans. While I can understand a desire to showcase the technology, is this kind of stuff relevant?

What's the problem, dial-up? 32KB should take 16 seconds maximum on dial-up. Reub2000 05:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The warning about 32K only applies to the text - removing images makes no difference. The 32K limit is only warned about because some older browsers only allow up to 32K of text to be edited. Modern browsers shouldn't have this problem, so the solution is: use a modern browser. Many subjects require far more than 32K to do them justice - whether that is the case here can be argued, but frankly, using a browser with a 32K editing limit will severely limit your ability to contribute to wikipedia in general. Graham 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So a simple solution would be to remove the summeries of the iPod Mini, iPod Photo, and iPod suffle articles. No reason to put info in 2 places.

The critcism section seems a bit one sided (favouring apple). Especially in places like "As the market leader, iPod has become the subject of criticism..." and "Consumers who want to download songs from the extensive iTunes music catalog to their digital audio players have no choice but to purchase an iPod" (emphasis mine)