Talk:iPhone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 6, 2006 Articles for deletion Deleted
June 10, 2010 Peer review Reviewed

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016[edit]

Egenio2000 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 the iphone is more expensive
Not done No requested changes. -- Dane2007 talk 02:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017[edit]

Can you change these source links back from:

  • https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075681886276172.html
  • https://www.wsj.com/article/SB117211001262715655.html

To:

  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075681886276172.html
  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117211001262715655.html

please? They redirect to the "sign up/subscribe" page. 103.199.137.190 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! — IVORK Discuss 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017[edit]

Webiste planetinsane.com is not valid any more, please remove the link to avoid spam sites use it. Moisty70 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Moisty70: Thank you for bringing attention to this! Planetinsane doesn't appear to be a particularly reliable source, so I will replace it with a more reliable source. LocalNet (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Expected 2017 model"[edit]

I believe pretty strongly that mention of a future model does not meet the expectation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. As we all know, Apple is very secretive and protective of future product announcements. While we new device is certainly likely, I wouldn't consider it a guarantee until Apple says so. Further, any mention of features or specifications is 100% speculative. When I deleted it, two features were mentioned: OLED and inductive charging. I just found several articles about iPhone 6 and 7 including OLED and inductive charging. Didn't happen. The iPhone rumormill is HUGE and lucrative. Anyone will post an article to get some good clicks. Until it comes from Apple, it's nothing more than a rumor. heat_fan1 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Information about the next generation of iPhone does meet the expectations of WP:CRYSTAL.
This is the sentence about the next generation iPhone, as I added it:

Informed sources within Apple and its supply chain partners report that Apple will release a next-generation iPhone, tentatively referred to within the media and industry as the iPhone 8, iPhone X, or iPhone 10th anniversary edition, in late 2017.[260][261][262].

Let's go step-by-step through the WP:CRYSTAL test for that sentence:
  • All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable
Per WP:VERIFIABLE, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."
Here, I selected three published articles from the range of major media organizations that have published on this topic (the Wall Street Journal, Barrron's, and the Express) plus one industry-specific organiation (AppleInsider). (To avoid WP:UNDUE, I sifted those four as representative of the dozens and dozens of reputable media outfits that have published on this same subject, both online and in print.) Any reader of Wikipedia can check those citations, that the information conforms to the sources, and that it is based on information from industry experts.
  • the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
Each iPhone model in the iPhone family has its own Wikipedia article, citing dozens of reliable sources that have published information about each model, typically also discussing the details of the model's release. It is nearly assured that the next generation model of iPhone will have its own Wikipedia article also.
  • It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.
My sentence discusses the likely release of the iPhone 8, and is properly referenced (as discussed above).
  • Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
As you can see, predictions, speculation, forecasts, and theories are all acceptable, if they come from reliable expert sources. As discussed above, those were included.
And if you feel that my sentence carries an unacceptable POV and cites sources that create an undue bias, and that Apple will not be releasing a new model of iPhone, then of course you're free to find sources supporting that assertion and adding them to the section.
  • Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
The release of a new iPhone model is notable, as hundreds of media organizations worldwide publish articles on the release of the new models annually.
The release of a new iPhone model is almost certain to take place, based on Apple's annual release schedule, and information from Apple supply chain partners, Apple corporate insiders, financial sector experts with industry connections who make their livelihood being informed about the status of Apple products, and journalists who are in constant touch with all of these people (all cited in the sources). Earlier today on an earnings calls, CEO Tim Cook himself indicated that Apple will be releasing a new model of iPhone.


  • If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
Preparation for the release of the new iPhone is already in progress, per the reliable sources discussed above -- plus the speculation is well documented.
  • even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient.
The scope of information available stating that Apple will be releasing a new model of iPhone is wide and deep -- plus there is extensive coverage of the process by reliable sources, as discussed above.
  • Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.
Here, the information *is* merged to the larger topic, obviously.
--Infoman99 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, and I understand your take. For me, it was the last point in WP:CRYSTAL that suggested to me that it should be removed (emphasis mine):
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
To me, the points you refer to are discussing future events, though obviously discussion of the next iPhone can refer to the release of the device as the "future event." When I consider content, I think of the encyclopedic value of it. Understanding that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and has, effectively, limitless content space, I wonder whether something like rumors about future products would ever be in an encyclopedia, and I can't see it. Further, even the most reliable sources get Apple product speculation wrong all the time. The purpose of WP:CRYSTAL is to weed out information on what could be true, and instead focus on what is true or will be true. What's written about the next iPhone is nothing more than what could be true about it. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi heat_fan1 -- I understand your general concern about, as you called it, 'encyclopedic value.'
To answer your big-picture issue -- all discussion of anticipated events, by definition, involves what could be true, as opposed to what is true. Yet, the framers of WP:NOT and its sub-section WP:CRYSTAL, after 15 years of discussion,[1] have decided to allow such content, when notable and backed by reliable sources.
In this case, the release of a future model of iPhone has already been covered by many dozens of published reliable sources based on expert information, and the actual release will be covered by many hundreds of published reliable sources, as indicated by past releases.
Regarding WP:NOT and its section on encyclopedic content -- a mention of the release of the next model of iPhone does not appear to fit any of the prohibited specific situations listed in section 2.
Regarding "speculation" -- a search of WP:NOT / WP:CRYSTAL for all the instances of the word speculation shows that the thrust of the policy is that speculation based on documented, reliable, expert sources may be included, as long as speculation is not at the core of an article. If you read the surrounding paragraphs around the instances of "speculation", it specifically allows for: "articles about anticipated events", "predictions, speculation, forecasts, and theories", and discussion of "scheduled or expected future events", "unreleased products", and of "product announcements ... merged to a larger topic."
Regarding your statement that "I wonder whether something like rumors about future products would ever be in an encyclopedia, and I can't see it" -- the policy of Wikipedia (as opposed to Britannica and the like) is that, under WP:CRYSTAL, as discussed above, is specifically to allow well-documented discussion of future products based on reliable sources.
Regarding "Further, even the most reliable sources get Apple product speculation wrong all the time. The purpose of WP:CRYSTAL ..." -- again, the authors of the WP:CRYSTAL policy hashed out this rubric over many years. After much discussion, they decided to allow speculation and anticipated events, where it was well-documented by reliable sources. You may want to post on the WP:NOT talk page, and suggest a change to disallow such discussion, even when it's backed by published reliable sources.
Regarding "What's written about the next iPhone is nothing more than what could be true about it." -- like I mentioned above, the policy hashed out in WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL is specifically to allow for discussion of anticipated events, where it's backed by reliable sources.
In sum, it seems like your argument is more with WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL than with a one- or two- sentence mention of the release of the next model of iPhone based on many dozens of reliable sources. You may be able to suggest a change and to successfully convince them to modify the policy. (And I'm being sincere about that, not facetious.) Infoman99 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the history lesson, and truly thanks for sharing the Archive Index, a tool I hadn't previously noticed. I get your point, and you may be right about my issue. But I still see the line, specifically under the 5th point about products (the other four being more tied to events than objects or products), that states Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Can you better explain how that statement doesn't apply here? heat_fan1 (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I have two main responses.
First, the phrase "encyclopedic content" at the end of Point 5, in this context, appears to mean an entire Wikipedia article. This is based on three things: the structure of Point 5 itself, the definition of the phrase derived from WP:NOT section 2, and the definition of "encyclopedic content" from another Wikipedia policy. (All of these are discussed below).
Second, the fact that WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows for speculation means that we should read Point 5 to try to make the policy internally consistent so that it does not contradict itself. To do so, the logical reading for Point 5 would be that "encyclopedic content" refers to entire articles. (This is also discussed below.)
I'll start with Response Two, and gradually shift into Response One.
At first glance, there does appear to be an internal inconsistency within WP:CRYSTAL regarding "speculation" (including in Point 5). But on closer examination, the inconsistency seems to resolve itself.
The introductory paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL, which should set the binding overall rule for all Wikipedia, mentions speculation twice:
  • A) Speculation, along with predictions, forecasts, and theories, may be included, if stated by reliable expert sources or recognized entities in a field.
  • B) The speculation cannot be unverifiable.
Speculation is also mentioned as allowable in Point 1, which I would argue also applies. My sentence, in part, is pointing out that a release for the new model of iPhone is anticipated to occur. These releases of new models of iPhones are covered widely by global media (public anticipation, first global sales in Australia, online ordering backlogs, long lines). The press also details the release announcement events themselves (venue, length of time, names of presenters, etc.). The releases also typically receive coverage within the Wikipedia article for the iPhone models themselves.
The mention of speculation in Point 3 says that speculation is inappropriate if it's original research and constitutes a full article. My sentence is not original research as it restates and cites sentences from the footnoted articles. It also is only a single small sub-section within an article.
As you mention, Point 5 touches on speculation in a way that seems to battle with the previous statements on speculation. This may be an artifact of the group-editing process. But the gist of Point 5 is focused on the 'size and shape' of the speculation. For example:
  • such information should not be used as the sole basis of an article ("Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.")
  • such information should instead be placed within a larger existing article about the franchise or series or the like ("Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.")
Given that Point 5 overall is focused on the use of speculation as the core of a full article, the phrase "encyclopedic content" at the end of Point 5 likewise reasonably appears to refer to the use of speculation or rumor as the basis of an entire Wikipedia article.
This is supported by another use of the phrase "encylopedic content" in Wikipedia, in WP:HERE, which defines encyclopedic content as "articles and media".
Even more on point, WP:NOT section 2 (labeled "Encyclopedic Content") is focused on what "A Wikipedia article should not be". The numerous uses of the word "articles" in section 2 confirm this further.
So, in sum, we have the following pieces of information that gravitate toward finding that "encyclopedic content" at the end of Point 5 should be read to mean that speculation should not be the core of an entire Wikipedia article:
  • the internal consistency of WP:CRYSTAL and all of its uses of "speculation"
  • the pre-existing focus of Point 5
  • the examples of encyclopedic content given in WP:NOT section 2, and
  • the use of "encyclopedic content" in another Wikipedia policy.
Taken on the whole, that's a strong case that Point 5 should be read consistently with WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL overall and -- so that the policy does not contradict itself -- that speculation is allowed, where it's backed by verifiable expert reliable sources and not the core of the article. In conjunction with Wikimedia's vision to "freely share in the sum of all knowledge"[2], I think a basic acknowledgement of experts' well-documented views of a major and consequential occurrence in the near future is appropriate to include in the iPhone article.
Infoman99 (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You definitely know how to make a well-informed, quality argument. I think Point 5 should be clarified, but I can play along.
Now, I still think iPhone rumors are utter nonsense and not something that would be in my encyclopedia, but this is a community Wiki and all good content is welcome. Thanks for a good discussion; you've changed my mind. heat_fan1 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah thanks heat_fan1. I think my high school English teacher would be gratified to hear that not all his red ink on my papers went to waste, heh.
I agree that Point 5 could benefit from a little tweaking. Thanks for the conscientious back-and-forth ironing this out. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Infoman99 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There are always rumours and speculation about upcoming iPhones and Samsung phones. This is exactly the sort of thing that WP:CRYSTAL is designed to prevent. Wikipedia articles should not rehash this type of material from the tech blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi IanMacM - thanks for your input. Can you note the policy specifics that you're concerned about? That will help focus the discussion. Thank you. Infoman99 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There are clear problems with WP:V with this type of speculation, and it also runs into problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. Wikipedia should also steer clear of the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) advertising that accompanies the constant round of speculation surrounding what the next iPhone or Samsung Galaxy phone will do, what it will look like etc. We aren't here to do this, we are here to write an encyclopedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on IPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced software info[edit]

Hi everybody! While editing the Software section, I noticed the text "It is a variant of the same Darwin operating system core that is found in Mac OS X. Also included is the "Core Animation" software component from Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard. Together with the PowerVR hardware (and on the iPhone 3GS, OpenGL ES 2.0), it is responsible for the interface's motion graphics." It is unsourced. I tried doing research to find WP:SECONDARY sources stating that information, and I couldn't find any. I then proceeded to try finding primary sources, and couldn't find any there either. This might (I want to emphasize might) be a case where the content is true because someone has done research on it themselves, and then the content has stayed for so long that it appears to be true. If anybody out there knows of a reliable source stating this information, please add it! Otherwise, I'll remove it within a few days. Hopefully someone else can figure it out! :) LocalNet (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)