This is an archive of past discussions about IPhone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
AllThingsD (http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080430/moritz/) is reporting that "AT&T is planning to put some extra shine on the even sleeker new Apple iPhone. When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy."
The source of the AllThingsD article is (http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/29/att-to-cut-the-price-of-apples-new-iphone/) which also reveals;
- The new iPhone is expected to be released on the one-year anniversary of the original iPhone debut June 27 or thereabouts.
- The new iPhone will be 2.5 mm thinner than the 11.7 mm original.
- The new iPhone will also have a GPS chip for navigation and other location-based services.
- Apple is expected to have two versions of the new iPhone, an 8-gigabyte-memory and a 16-gigabyte-memory model with price tags widely expected to be $399 and $499.
- AT&T is preparing to subsidize $200 of the cost of a new iPhone, bringing the price down to $199 for customers who sign two-year contracts.
I think it is time to add this information to the main article.
I don't think it is really desirable to give this much detail for an unreleased product. I mean, the article will definitely be updated once 3G iphone is out. That said, I'm hearing a lot recently that 3G iphone will be released in June. Is this more than just a rumor? -- Taku (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote from [1], "Everyone seems to think that Apple will be announcing a 3G iPhone this coming June,". Everyone but Wikipedia at this point. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can add this kind of info to the article but it has to be very well-sourced. I read that blog, and while a blog connected to CNN can be considered a good source in many cases, they admit in the article that AT&T and Apple won't comment and that all this information is from some unknown source. -- Atamachat22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
John Gruber at Daring Fireball posted this great deconstruciton of the subsidy rumors, along with a pretty sharp critique of the other alleged "inside information" being bounced around, you might check it out. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of past history, it is very uncharacteristic for a partner or other associate of Apple to reveal information about an upcoming Apple product before Apple. Even if a piece of information is well-sourced, IMHO it should come from Apple. If it were any other company, then the 3rd-party information could have some credibility to it. But in the case of Apple - who's known for anything but leaking information (and even purposely sending false information in different directions to detect leaks in the social system), the source of the information is even more vital to Wikipedia's credibility. Groink (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Recently someone tried to enter 3G info using Computerworld as a source (thanks Groink for the revert), but that article even said that both Apple and T-Mobil (the provided over in Austria) refused to comment on it, Apple called it "rumor and speculation". Again, all that we have is guesses and rumors. Wikipedia isn't an online gossip magazine. -- Atamachat22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there is an important difference between (i) writing an article based on rumors and speculations and (ii) mentioning such rumors and speculations. (i) is, of course, off-limit. But, (ii), I think we are allowed to do (ii). Maybe it's just me, but I am getting this distinctive impression that 3G iphone will be out in June. Also, do you think it is ok to add links to those articles via ref? Since news article titles often contain words about the date of the release, this amounts to the mention of the release date in the article, in effect. -- Taku (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, again read the policy I linked earlier, WP:CRYSTAL. There is no point in even mentioning rumors and speculation, that is not what an encyclopedia does. -- Atamachat15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Vodafone's injunction was overturned in Germany --- it means that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany.
T-Mobile Germany VOLUNTARILY promised to provide unlocking codes at the end of the iPhone contract in Germany. The key word is "voluntarily" --- again saying that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.75.87 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
From Internet connectivity section:
"The EDGE network benefits iPhone users in the U.S. by providing greater availability than 3G, as carriers based in the U.S. do not have full 3G coverage.[34] By contrast, 3G coverage ranges from 60 to 90-percent in the United Kingdom.[35]"
EDGE benefits iPhone users cause it has limited coverage?? Its like saying dial-up benefits computer X users cause cable internet has limited coverage! Turning a drawback into a benefit like that is ridiculous.
"Since the iPhone's inception, the use of the handset for Internet connectivity has exposed one or more trends. According to AT&T and Google, the iPhone generated 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[36]"
This is a silly statement as the linked article compares iPhones data transfers with regular phones data transfer! Thats analogous to saying that "users who have computer with a browser and email have higher data transfers than users who only have email client", is that an interesting trend or just manipulation? Of course simple handsets will have lower data rate as they are only used for calling and texting, either compare iPhone users' transfer to other smart and PDA phones users' transfer or don't compare it at all. Kezorm (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, what? "EDGE benefits iPhone users cause it has limited coverage??" Re-read the sentence you quoted again. Its pointing out that EDGE has the benefit of better coverage than AT&T's 3G network. As far as the data comparison, its comparing search stats, not data transfer overall, and pointing out how it is standing out from all phones, not just smartphones. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you mistyped your first argument, as you contradict yourself. But the example you gave is true. Being able to connect to the internet over a phone line is much more available than connecting over cable. However, a more current example would be dial-up (or cable) versus Verizon FiOS service, where access to FiOS is limited in a similar fashion as 3G and is considered a downside to the FiOS service. -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs)18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kezorm. These paragraphs need work. Here is what they were:
The EDGE network benefits iPhone users in the U.S. by providing greater availability than 3G, as GSM carriers based in the U.S.(AT&T & T-Mobile) do not have full 3G coverage.[28] CDMA carriers, such as Sprint, do have full 3G (2.4Mbit/s) coverage available most everywhere but they do not use the IPhone. By contrast, 3G coverage ranges from 60 to 90 percent of the population in the United Kingdom.[29]
Since the iPhone's inception, the use of the handset for Internet connectivity has exposed one or more trends. According to AT&T and Google, the iPhone generated 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[30] The iPhone also increased the average wireless data usage as much as 30 times higher than on other phones, or 100 MB per iPhone customer.[31]
Note the poor grammar, spacing, and capitalization. Who added these paragraphs? Why even mention CDMA and specific carriers if the iPhone doesn't support it?
I have revised these paragraphs below:
The EDGE network provides greater availability than 3G, as GSM carriers based in the U.S. do not have full 3G coverage.[28] In contrast, 60 to 90 percent of the population in the United Kingdom have access to 3G coverage.[29]
The ubiquitous Internet connection offered by the iPhone has been widely utilized by users. According to Google, the iPhone generates 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[30] According to Deutsche Telekom CEO René Obermann, "The average Internet usage for an iPhone customer is more than 100 MBytes. This is 30 times the use for our average contract-based consumer customers."[31]
It could still use some work, but it has less bias and makes much more sense now. That said, when the 2nd generation comes out I'm sure these points will be moot anyway. ~ PaulT+/C18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Jailbreaking" the iPhone
This has come up in the past (adding "hacks" to the article) and there were recent attempts to add such information again so I thought it would be appropriate to start a discussion about this. I personally feel that there is no harm exactly in explaining how to unlock an iPhone, that information is already out on the Web and easy to find, so I think we don't need to censor the article in such a manner. At the same time, Wikipedia isn't a how-to and it's beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to instruct people in the best way to do so, so having links to jailbreaking programs and advice on the best method is not a good idea. I'd like to see if others agree. -- Atamachat17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's only the WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:EL, and WP:NPOV that needs to be avoided. It is of course perfectly acceptable to say there are lots of ways to unlock the phone. I wouldn't even have much trouble, if someone wants to start a highly referenced (not WP:OR) article on List of iPhone unlocking tools, but whoever creates it needs to be very careful of WP:Wikipedia is not Google. BTW, for a laugh, check out my talk page on the recent editor. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I don't own an iPhone and never will. My take on hacking has always been the risk of damaging the iPhone. Most people don't believe that tinkering with firmware can render hardware non-functional. But for firmware engineers like myself (a former ROM-BIOS engineer), we've seen it happen a lot over the years - with everything from cellphones, gaming machines, PCs, etc. The problem is that I cannot find sources that support my experiences, as I believe either no one is admitting he messed up his iPhone, or the chatter is being drowned out by the pro-jailbreakers. It is impossible to use a chat board as a reliable source, in that even if someone admitted to bricking his iPhone because of a hack, one can easily write it off as hardware damage that wasn't linked to the hack. I also believe that the jailbreaking community is a very adamant and somewhat scary group - to the level where they lose credibility because they're so energized and enraged about it they loose all sense of focus and bodily functions, and start blabbering their mouths off, such as what the editor did with KelleyCook's talk page. When people are energized like this, it is really to control the content or tone of the contributions. Most of it would end up being anti-Apple or anti-this and that, which is what I believe is the driving force behind this almost radical-like movement. I don't like engaging in edit wars with these people, and therefore I'd rather just avoid it altogether rather than deal with what some of us consider fancruft. We can mention jailbreaking - basically the purpose of jailbreaking. I wouldn't go any further than that, such as endorsing tools, web sites, or that you can restore the iPhone to factory condition. Just the fact that one must cover his tracks before sending the iPhone in for service is quite peculiar to me. Groink (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Discontinued
I just read on iLounge that o2 and Carphone Warehouse are not restocking the 8GB iPhone once they have sold out. Is this due to them making way for the new 3G iPhone? Jay794 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider anything short of an announcement from Apple as reliable information about availability and product plans. We've heard from Steve Jobs and several others (from AT&T) that a 3G version is coming this year, but nothing more. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly but there is are loads of discussions going round about the 3G iPhone, with a GPS. Will be interesting to see what happens at the WWDC. Jay794 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You should call o2 to see if they REALLY have the phone in stock. Web sites have a tendency to be out-of-date. Groink (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Info Box
Is it just me, or do other editors feel that the infobox has lost its purpose? The infobox is supposed to be a quick sheet of sorts, kind of like a sidebar, and should be very short in length. But right now I must scroll about 1/4 of the article's length to reach the bottom of the infobox. And the carrier list is the cause of it! Is there some other way of presenting this information? Maybe move the carrier list out of the infobox and move it to the body of the article itself? Groink (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The infobox is getting way to long. Maybe there could be a hide and show button for the carrier list? Mvjs (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, which disallows any use of copyrighted material. The original images can be uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair-use license. -/-Warren13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then, we should probably get images that are not on the commons, but can be used under fair use in the USA. I have a phone, so I assume I can take a picture of it, with the interface, for the purposes of an article on the subject of the iPhone. And frankly, the one blurred picture of Wikipedia on the iPhone is pretty ironic - I don't think Apple has copyright on wikipedia (or do they?) Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You assume wrong, because the Interface is copyrighted everywhere (including Wikipedia) and even a picture you take yourself of the iPhone is under Apple's copyright if the interface is in the picture. -- Atamachat17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, where did you get that interpretation of copyright law? It is not correct under any definition. The images do not have to be blurred. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the discussion and apparently did not come to the same conclusion that you did. However, instead of debating it here, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.
The blurred Wikipedia is amusing, all they would really *need* to blur are the interface elements themselves, not the content, but that would be... weird. Arguable stranger than just blurring it all. Regardless, I think we need some WP-hosted fair use images for this, it looks horrible with the blurry ones. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Atama, I did read the arguments, and drew the conclusion that they don't even address the point.
Much of the thread is Groink talking about GFDL and the Commons in the context of images taken from the Apple web site. He states this quite clearly in his last post, "Let me state one more time, if anyone uploads an image to English Wikipedia that was pulled off from apple.com, it will be reverted and deleted."
But we're not talking about images taken from the apple web site. We are talking about images taken by end-users and released under a license compatible with the GFDL. What has happened is that someone convinced the user in question (Frijole?) that taking an image of a copyrighted image makes the image unsuitable for a free license. Atama, your statement above is just plain wrong, as KelleyCook has noted.
p.s. Atama, is that the thread you wanted us to read? It refers to an earlier one about blurring, but I can't find that one.
The issue, as I understand it, is that we cannot have photos of the interface on the commons because images there are not supposed to be restricted in how they are used. If they had been uploaded to the english wikepedia only, and used for the iPhone article, then it's fair use. Fair use under US law allows for photographs and screenshots for the purpose of illustration in an article dedicated to the topic. If you were to check around, you'll see this is very common on Wikipedia. This is why we can show screenshots of Windows 95 and an example of of Mac OS X. Oh and here's an example Palm OS. Now, if you still think we cannot show images of the iphone's interface, please chime in. Otherwise, let's get a photograph that's not from the commons, that doesn't look stupid, and be done with it. Mattnad (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I might have to dig up the discussion that predated the discussion that I already linked, but the consensus was that no iPhones and iPods should show the home screen (the basic interface) and after that, all such images were changed or deleted. You'll notice that I already mentioned that discussion in that archived topic I linked. -- Atamachat22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This "consensus" you referred to is now being argued against, and is therefore no longer consensus. Didn't take long, did it? We had complaints from multiple people within hours of the images being replaced. I can guarantee you this -- if those blurred images stick around for long enough, people will start replacing them with better images that meet the English Wikipedia's fair use image polic. Frankly, they look fucking stupid, and for no particularily good reason. Tell you what -- if you can get the copyright owner of the non-free part of those images to say that the original non-blurred images are not considered acceptable and would take issue with unlimited downstream use of those pictures, I will donate $100 USD to the Wikimedia Foundation. -/-Warren22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. I was just repeating old discussions/decisions, I don't like the blurred images either. -- Atamachat22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply have un-blurred images on the site until we get a request from Apple to remove them (thought I can't ever imagine them doing so). If Apple truly has a problem with pictures of it's interface, they would simply request that Wikipedia remove them. Apple is not the Gestapo, they will not destroy Wikipedia for having images of the iPhone interface. 74.73.75.65 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be OK to replace blurred-out images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with images directly from Apple's website, hosted on Apple's website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.75.65 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Using Apple's images would be a copyright violation unless they gave permission for use. Now where it gets interesting is if someone else takes a photo of an iPhone. Then it's debatable about what's subject to copyright. There's a very technical, and sometimes poorly informed argument in the commons about whether it's ok for us show a photo taken of the device but not of the interface which may (or may not) be protected by copyright in that context. Long story short, there are a few editors who take a very hard line on what's permissible and it has nothing to do with the likelihood that Apple might sue Wikipedia. It's more of a political argument within Wikipedia about how images can be used.Mattnad (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The reality is, companies don't pursue everyone who posts a picture of their devices. If we were to blur all images of the iPhone interface, why should we not have to blur images of the OS X interface? (I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas) Think about the fact that we've had pictures of the OS X interface up for who knows how long, and yet, we've never incurred the wrath of Apple. (As far as I know) There are millions of pictures of the iPhone available online...why would Apple wish to single out Wikipedia for copyright infringement? And good job, Ausis, remedying at least part of this problem.24.239.166.200 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited a bit blur in pictures...now the blur is not so hard and pictures (in my opinion) look a bit better and still the "copyrighted parts" are kept obscure...so what others think?...Is so alright or I must restore that previous version?Ausis (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding Redundancy
This is an offshoot from the images discussion. Reading through the comments, it made me think of an even bigger issue: redundancy and lack of cohesion between the three major articles:
From what I'm been reading between these three articles, there is much too much redundant information. For example, let's say Java came out for the iPhone. That same information will be repeated on the other two articles. IMHO, this is poor management of the articles. The three articles should be treated as a series, rather than be three totally separate articles, each attempting to cover 100-percent of the device or OS.
The iPod touch is actually the hardware foundation of this line of iPod hardware, while the iPhone is basically the iPod touch with additional hardware and software, and iPhone OS being the common OS between the two. As someone stated earlier, the iPod touch and iPhone articles should focus on only the hardware, including multi-touch. The iPhone article should emphasize on the additional hardware that the iPod touch lacks. iPhone OS should then encompass all the software-related information - including applications, software upgrades and updates. If you look at the Mac OS X and the various Macintosh articles, you'll notice that they take a similar organization to what I'm proposing here.
I think if we can re-organize the articles to somehow complement each other, then when we do have issues that come up such as the blurry imagery, then we can better address these issues in a more consistent fashion. Groink (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Replacing all images of iPhone without interface
I say blurred images on iPhone is somewhat disturbing.
Why in the world would we show it without the interface? The hardware design is certainly owned by Apple, too, as is their logo... would we blur out those as well? -/-Warren21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the logic behind this blurring business especially since all other phones on wikipedia are allowed to keep the interface. But if the bureaucrats @ wikipedia decide it needs to be done it would be better to only have pics of the phone switched off. I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for showing pictures of the highly secretive iPhone interface so we might as well show them. Because to be honest all the blurred pictures look extremely stupid for lack of a better term. An ordinary reader might pass by this page only to spend the rest of their life wondering why the hell the pictures were blurred. Towel401 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's ponder this issue in another direction... Rather than stating that we must have an image of X or Y, we should think about the purpose of the images themselves. I don't want to search for it, but I remember reading a Wikipedia guideline where images should be used in order to convey an idea that can't be described in words alone. Regarding the iPhone, I see a photo of the iPhone turned off no different than, for example, a sports car with the front hood closed. Showing the GUI on an iPhone serves only one purpose - to demonstrate what the GUI looks like. IMHO, this is well covered in the iPhone OS article - as the GUI in reality is actually iPhone OS and NOT the iPhone itself. Think about it... If I wanted to show someone an iMac, showing the GUI to me is useless because an iMac could also run Linux or Windows (Intel versions.) These are the things you must think about before you start uploading images to an article. With that, I believe that showing an iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable.
One other thing... In my last rant regarding GFDL, my premise there was to have the English Wikipedia version of the iPhone article published on the CD release of Wikipedia. If we start uploading images to English Wikipedia directly, bypassing Wikimedia Commons, then those images won't be published in the CD release. That is why it is HIGHLY ENCOURAGED that we upload all of our images to Wikimedia Commons so that our hard work can be found on the CD release. Groink (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think it is up to us to decide whether we use blurred images or not. The question is whether we are permitted to use clear images. Can anyone cite policies or guidelines which talk about this kind of image? (By the way, I noticed the iMac article shows iMac with the screen turned off. If showing the interface is not legally possible, I don't see what we can do about it. Finally, I agree with Groink in the problem of the use of images under fair use. -- Taku (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion, the images for the iPhone article must have NO interface, focus directly on the hardware itself. Anything related to the software portion should be placed on the iPhone OS article. This way, the blurring is avoided, since the iPhone article would focus on the hardware (such as multi-touch technology and etc. ), and the software interface (such as the keyboard, iPod software and etc.) would be focused more on the iPhone OS article. Beside, images of the OS interface is mostly on the OS article. (such as the home screen) Bentoman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I think that's missing the point. The point of iPhone is the tight integration of software and hardware. The virtual keyboard isn't pure software stuff, for example. That's why the images of the interface are relevant to the article. But, per my above post, if it is not possible to do it, then it's not possible to do it :) End of discussion? -- Taku (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible though. IPhone's keyboard is FULLY powered by iPhone OS. The hardware that powers the keyboard is the multi-touch screen. Remember, the keyboard is virtual, powered by an operating system, which is the iPhone OS. Therefore, having the image of the iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable. The keyboard interface image belongs to the iPhone OS article. Remember, multi-touch interacts the keyboard, the keyboard is part of iPhone OS. Bentoman (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The multi-touch screen is a hardware feature. But that feature makes no sense when the iPhone is turned off. It is relevant to "this article" to show the multi-touch screen at work. Showing the image of the virtual keyboard is one of the best way to do it, because words just don't sufficiently convey how it works. You can also notice that the image of the keyboard, one used in this article, shows a person's hands on the keyboard. That kind of the image doesn't belong to the iPhone OS article because it should only show what appears on the screen of the iPhone, not a person operating it. (So, a video of a person typing with the virtual keyboard is actually better but that's another story.) -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you are right about that, but I think it is wise that some of the images be replaced. For example, the first image should be the phone itself, no interface (the home screen image is on the iPhone OS article, therfore the picture that shows the phone at the top of the article should be the hardware itself)
For the keyboard, show only the keyboard itself, along with the fingers that person is typing. The rest is blurred.
Third, the image where wikipedia page is shown, delete, there is already an image of it on the iPhone OS article itself.
If none of those action seems fesible, what do you suggest? This, I must have an answer for. If no solution is found, I have no solution but to have the admin lock the article. Bentoman (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoman (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
right|thumb|200px I just wanted to add while all of you are fretting about blurred interfaces on the iPhone photos, this image is still sitting in the article. Should we blur this too? It's OK under US fair use rules, but not for the commons. OK, who volunteers to blur this as well? And suggestions to separate the phone from the interface miss the broader issue that you can't properly explain one without the other. Mattnad (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
And here is another image from the article that demonstrates the iPhone interface - this time for photo viewing. If we're going to be consistent and exceed fair use rules, then we'll have to blur the photo elements here too. I think my point is we would damage the article if we held it to a higher standard than fair use doctrine which is what the proponents of blurring the interface images are asking.
Does it seem realistic that Apple will sue Wikipedia over images of the interface? I think not. Lawyers are expensive, and images of the interface can't possible be against the business interests of Apple. They are probably happy for the free publicity, and not itching to sue anyone in sight. 24.239.166.200 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The iPhone cannot be properly represented without displaying the unaltered interface. This is especially true considering that the iPhone is one of the most interface-dependent (i.e. minimal hardware interface) electronic devices in history. It is highly inconsistent that there are hundreds of "copyright" interface image of other less-known products that have not drawn fire, and probably will never do so. If I may quote my Lamentation of Copyright: More harm is done to the encyclopedia by editors enforcing copyrights than by the copyright owners enforcing them.--HereToHelp(talk to me)01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
and I'll add this article is being subjected to a standard of copyright separate to from that of fair use in the USA. Some editors want this to be on a CD which must have images from the commons. In essence, this article should suffer for the aspirations to get it into a CD that far fewer people will see than on Wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
These last two points should be read repeatedly until they sink in. We're here to write the Wikipedia. The online wikipedia. All else is secondary. Sorry Groink. Maury (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that some of you have a totally elitist point of view when it comes to editing English Wikipedia. Think about the thousands of English-speaking schools and other institutions who do not enjoy broadband or any other form of Internet access, in order to access the so-called primary form of this or any other article. The purpose of the CD project is to share information beyond just the Internet. May I remind everyone here that if any portion of the article does not meet the requirements of the Wikimedia Commons release, the article itself will be left out of the project. Groink (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying there are thousands of institutions that can afford computers, but not the $9.95 a month for dial-up internet access? In my opinion, if you were to poll these institutions that do not have access to the internet, this article on the iPhone is probably among the least of their worries. There is plenty of published material out there for those students who want to research this topic. And this isn't presidential politics so the "elitist" moniker really has no place here (and I don't particularly like Arugula either). It really comes down to how far we debase an article to get this into the CD that is so important to so few. Also, Groink, in all seriousness, you'll still have to excise the other pictures of the interface that are in the article under fair use. Why don't to do those edits now and ask the other editors whether it's worth it. Mattnad (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for calling us all elitists simply because we disagree with you.
I stand by my early comment, and KelleyCook's: Apple has absolutely zero copyright claim in this case. If you have any salient arguments against this point, let's hear them. If you do not, your argument is off-topic; as the images are totally free to use as we see fit, they can be used on the CD. Maury (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that the deletion of any image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is not logged for everyone to see. Previous uploads of Apple-developed images onto WC have been removed. I've seen this with many other Apple-related articles through the years. For the record, I do not see a problem using images that were created by people outside of Apple, such as taking a screenshot of the GUI. I never once argued that they were not allowed - that was an argument made by someone else and not me. As long as you upload the image to WC with a properly selected license and written rationale, the image should stick and everything I've said up to now would be solved.
Keep one thing in mind... The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to develop a centralized image repository for ALL Wikimedia-related projects. In short, the use of the image repository is highly recommended so that the dozens of different Wikipedia projects each do not upload the same images to its servers. Imagine the same iPhone image being repeated again and again and again on every server. And if a better image is available, you would need an account on every one of those projects, and log onto every one of them in order to change the image. Instead, all Wikipedia editors should be storing their images onto WC and link to them in their Wikipedia articles. I have not seen this use of WC being pushed on the Apple-related articles, but I've most certainly have seen the idea pushed on many others projects - as I've observed literally thousands of photos deleted from both WC and English Wikipedia on the basis of failing non-free status in the photos' rationale. For one to use English Wikipedia to as an image depository in order to avoid the non-free requirement (i.e. claim fair use over non-free) is ridiculous. Groink (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This Wikimedia Commons line of discussion is a distraction. Your argument is all about efficiency and not about quality. This article does not need to use images from Wikimedia Commons. We can legally show the iPhone, with the interface intact, on English Wikipedia under fair use rules. So let's do it. For those other articles, let them use the degraded, stupid, idiotic, image of the blurred interface created to satisfy the extreme (and capricious) application of copyright rules on the Commons.Mattnad (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Rather than argue, how about we calmly identify our objectives and options, find out what path best fits what we want to do, and take it. Feel free to add to either list, just sign afterwards.
Objectives:
Avoid information duplication/redundancy
Preserve historic information
Allow for the addition of new, future models without restructuring
Allow for the excited anons to add their information
Clearly identify and explain the differences between the two products.
Options:
Add a section in iPhone explaining the differences while everything else there applies to both models unless otherwise specified, like iPod nano (but more than just a list of versions)
Create one new article with these differences, or add it to History of the iPhone, and let iPhone talk about commonalities
Create separate articles for each phone focused on the differences and clearly subsidiary to iPhone, like iPod photo
Create separate articles for each phone and move most of the current information in iPhone to iPhone 2G, leaving the former as a disambiguation page, like HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II
Note - It seems to me that we just moved beyond the purposes of an AfD article and moved to a topic which should be in the Talk:iPhone page. I don't think the deletion question is real anymore, as it was when the suggestion was made. Does User:Roleplayer agree? - Denimadept (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone agrees on notability; this is now classification and organization. If that means it's not an AfD, sure, move it back to talk.--HereToHelp(talk to me)20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm neither the original poster, an admin, or someone who has been dealing with Apple-related topics on Wikipedia, so I don't consider myself someone who should be messing with it that much. I got a little excited earlier and went beyond my normal area. :-D "Why" is a matter for elsewhere. OTOH, someone posted "BE BOLD" on my Talk page... - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the single article. Use the iPod article as an example. The editors there are able to jam dozens of different models into a single article. If you look up above in the previous sections of this talk page, you'll see my bit on how to re-org to avoid redundancy. Groink (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles for those phones aren't of the same quality because they don't have the number of users or the amount of press as the iPhone. You can't reasonably argue that there aren't enough interested editors to write quality iPhone and iPhone 3G articles. The Wizard is the direct predecessor to the Tytn, so do some research and read WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position, but what in my statement could that possibly be construed as a personal attack? I said (and stand by the fact) that those articles are poor inferring that they should not be used as examples — which has nothing to do with you personally. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Precedents are important, but please see my next post on figuring out which to follow. And for a product as iconoclastic as the iPhone, we might need to set, rather than follow, a precedent.--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no individual cell phone as notable or as prominent as the iPhone or the iPhone 3G. If other cell phones are notable enough to have their own pages, why not for the different iPhone models? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability has nothing do with it. The information is/will be present; that's agreed upon. The question is how it is to be presented, so it's an accessibility issue. I would like to call attention to the poor state of separate articles. HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II are just lists of specifications and a few paragraphs on features if you're lucky. iPhone 3G hasn't developed beyond a stub (although it's only been a few hours); current activity seems to be based on whether it is thicker or thinner than the original. These articles are a mess. iPhone has lots of information in one place. So, in considering precedents, don't just say "we did this there, so we should do the same thing here". Evaluate how it turned out.--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are there not enough interested editors to maintain quality, separate articles for both models? The iPhone has more press coverage and almost as many users as all Windows Mobile phones put together. And until the debate is concluded, I (and I presume others) think it's not worth putting in lots of effort developing a full iPhone 3G article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, there might not be enough editors to contend with all the anons. You've added templates and categories [2], but you've hardly touched the text. But why bother when we have a perfectly good base at iPhone? There's a lot of similarity between the two versions because they are one product. If you try to create fully separate 2G and 3G articles, you will have to duplicate a lot of the hardware and software information. There's nothing wrong with having two sets of specifications in one place if we clearly mark which one is which, and talk about when various software features became available, and so forth. If you copy and paste a lot of this information, it will become twice as difficult to maintain over time and will have redundancy. We need to address the iPhone, not an iPhone. Two articles are confusing, and splits up information about history, trademarks, and unlocking that apply to both models of the same phone. A full 3G article is pointless and unnecessary.--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think it's worth my time making major edits to the iPhone 3G article unless and until it is decided to be notable enough to keep. On a more practical level, what would you do with the infobox in the iPhone article if you merge them? Would you have two infoboxes? Right now it's a confusing mish mash of both models. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess you'd indicate both as clearly as possible. If that becomes too disorderly, we'd use the 3G specs, especially after it comes out.--HereToHelp(talk to me)23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As someone else indicated earlier, the goal for this re-org is to avoid redundancy of information across two or more articles. I think the majority of editors will agree that the iPhone is a variation of the iPod, and NOT just another smartphone. Using the iPod touch as the foundation of the multi-touch based iPod, tack on a handful of hardware features and you have an iPhone. As you would see, there isn't much that distinguishes the iPhone from the iPod touch. That is why I recommended the iPhone article focus purely on the hardware, and leave out any mention of software other than the fact that it uses iPhone OS. Talk about the software in iPhone OS. In the near future, you will find that the multi-touch iPod platform will be similar to the iMac or Mac Pro hardware lines; it would be best for the future for all related articles if we prepare for an extensive line of these iPods. Groink (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. I do understand the practicality of having iPhone OS referenced from the touch and the phone (and new MacBooks), but we need to give a summary of the how one interacts with an iPhone. The iPhone is an iPod, but's it's also a phone (phone data needs to stay here), and also something unique and unclassifiable. The reader should gain an overall view of the iPhone in one article. You're trying to siphon off hardware much like others are trying to separate hardware. Because of the level of detail and the iPod touch, I agree with you to a certain extent, but we need to provide more than just a link.--HereToHelp(talk to me)23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep this in one thread, okay? I think one of the core issue is whether the new model is a brand new product or just an upgrade. This will help us decide which precedent is more important, cell phones (separate articles) or iPods (same article). iPhone 3G says/said "The iPhone [3G] is a smartphone produced by Apple Inc. It was announced as the successor to the iPhone..." I disagree. It is not a successor, like the iPod nano was to the mini, but rather just an upgrade, like generations of an iPod. The iPhone 3G is not just a smartphone, it is an--the--iPhone. I support option 1, maybe 2.--HereToHelp(talk to me)20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with HtH. The way I look at the iPhone hasn't changed at all with these updates. What I see is a 1.0 product replaced with a 2.0 product, with what that represents. I think one article, which sets the standard for future such upgrades, makes sense. Now, a separate article for the iPod Touch, that is a separate model of the iPhone. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To continue. Have a new section with "changes from v1 to v2" and let such differences leach there from the main article as they appear. When v3 is released, add a new section for "v2 to v3", etcetera. Or something like that. - Denimadept (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Two seperate articles is too confusing for people who have no idea what Edge is. If two seperate articles is done then it should be version 1 and two, not edge and 3g, because when the next iphone arrives why'd end up with something stupid like, Iphone 3G but this one also has XY, nope, that doesnt quite work. lol. There isnt much difference between the two models so why not just keep them all under this article "iPhone" and make a category called models. Subcategory, Version1 explaining features and Subcategory Version2 explaining what else its got. Thats what i think. =) Smiley =) (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Single article. We don't have separate articles for each revision of the iPod. We've got separate articles for the iPod Shuffle and suchlike, but those are distinct products which were sold in parallel, whereas the iPhone 3G is an incremental update to the existing iPhone product. There's simply too much that's the same between the two to justify a completely separate article. Zetawoof(ζ)02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather than argue about this any longer, I've decided to be bold and prove that we can and should have all this information in one article by creating an integrated article. I invite all of you to channel the energy we're spending arguing into constructive article building.--HereToHelp(talk to me)02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Video recording on iPhone vs other devices -- vertical "lag"
I have noticed that video recordings made on other mobile devices often display an artifact that I don't know the name for. I can only describe it as a sort of vertical "lag". If the camera is moved quickly left/right, the bottom and top of the objects in the image will appear to wobble. A particularly visible example is seen if you point the video out the side of a car while driving, in which case the top or bottom would be seen to be clearing "leading" the other. The effect can be seen in a muted way in this video: [3]. Often there's also a "tearing" effect where horizontal artifacts appear as vertical segments seem to "separate". (1) Is there a name for this effect? (2) Is there a wikipedia article about it? Because most mobile video capture has this effect, but the iPhone doesn't, and I think that's very interesting. Sbwoodside (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I found it, this effect is apparently called Rolling shutter. It appears that the iPhone does suffer from the effect, as described in this YouTube video: [4]. Apparently this occurs in all CMOS based cameras/video recorders, even very high end ones [5]. Sbwoodside (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. This can be compared to a cheap flatbed scanner - where it scans from top-to-bottom for a few seconds, and anything can happen to the document during that period. For a camera, if the object is moving faster than the speed in which the camera can capture the imagery to CMOS, then the object will look much like what you see in comic books when illustrating a moving object. With the high demand in more megapixels by the year, the temporary memory that retains the imagery before storing it to flash memory will only get worse. Simply, we're expecting 1's and 0's to run just as fast as the speed of light. Groink (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful analysis of the problem with the device; now what do we do about it in the article? I'm only hesitant about the source, not the issue. HereToHelp(talk to me)03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on who is to "blame" for the problem. If Sbwoodside is correct that it is the fault of the CMOS technology and not the fault of the manufacturers who use it (and therefore the widespread effect on digital cameras as a whole,) then I would say it actually does not belong on the iPhone article. Mentioning in this article that the iPhone uses CMOS technology would be sufficient, as I don't think it is the responsibility of every article about a product to expose a flaw that is so widespread. Here's how I come to this opinion: we all know that cheeseburgers are bad for you. Thousands of restaurants sell them. In any one article about the restaurant, it doesn't have to point out the health factors of the cheeseburger the restaurant sells. Although the common knowledge of CMOS in cameras is far less than food, Wikipedia doesn't require the article to cover it. Therefore, the reader should take the due diligence and research about digital cameras, just as it is his responsibility to learn the health factors of a particular food before he eats it.
However, if it is exclusively a problem with just the iPhone, then indeed it should be covered, as long as there are verifiable evidence indicating that the technology isn't bad, but instead the implementation of the technology by Apple is flawed. Just like the Sony laptop battery issue - Sony attempted to put blame on the OEMs as poor implementation of the battery in the products, and not the battery itself. Groink (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever "fault" it is, if the only source is a Youtube film then mentioning it in this article or any other article is original research. I previously reverted Sbwoodside's contribution on those grounds. If there is some reliable source discussing the matter then I don't have any problem mentioning it (in fact, I'd want it included). We include information we can verify, not information that's "true". I've tried to find coverage but all I can find are videos and blogs discussing it. The most reliable source I can find is O'Reilly Radar, which may count as a reliable source because it's attached to the O'Reilly tech site and the author of the blog is a freelance journalist. I'm open to others' opinions on whether or not that counts. -- Atama頭21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree on the handling of verifiable information. We don't just add information to this article because it is verifiable. It is our job as editors to take the verifiable information one step further and judge whether or not it fits the scope of the Wikipedia article. Again, think about the Sony battery issue; the method of implementation of the battery was important. It was found that Apple did implement the battery correctly (As well as Dell, HP, etc.,) and that's why you don't see the battery issue mentioned in the Apple laptop articles on Wikipedia. Same with the CMOS implementation. That is why I also disagree with your idea about dissing the fault idea. I don't think it is fair for the iPhone to be used as the poster child for the vertical lag just because it is the most popular phone to use it. They'll probably be many articles posted on the 'net linking Apple and the vertical lag problem, but again just because they're written by reliable sources doesn't mean we should add it to Wikipedia. These sources don't uphold to the same scrutiny as here. The vertical lag is definitely a verifiable issue; the point I'm making here is that we shouldn't pin the problem on the iPhone IF Apple indeed implement the technology correctly to the OEM specifications. We should take the due diligence to let the issue "marinate," and allow more research to counter the information. Groink (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying it doesn't at all matter whose fault it is. I'm 100% with you on that. I'm saying that until it's verifiable, it's a moot point because it shouldn't be in Wikipedia anywhere. If it can be verified with a reliable source, then we need to consider whether it belongs in this article or another one. -- Atama頭16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
