Talk:iPhone 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Marketing buzzwords do not belong in an informational article, especially the technological description of the item[edit]

"Retina Display" needs to be removed from the right-hand column where the device is supposed to be described as is in terms of hardware. "Retina Display" is a marketing buzzword and holds no merit in terms of description when it comes to hardware. --HoboX10 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Gyroscope and accelerometer 6 axis? im sorry even nasa hasnt gotten that far, also in that section it says AXES instead of AXIS, acceleration and movement dont get their own axis, they are still limited to x,y,z.Fortybam (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Glaring typo on the second sentence of the article[edit]

There is an unclosed parenthesis. See if you can spot it. " It is particularly marketed for video calling (marketed by Apple as Facetime, consumption of media such as books and periodicals, movies, music, and games, and for general web and e-mail access. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed.CWenger (^@) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Camera Issue[edit]

Many users are reporting issues with the camera freezing and locking up (A simple google search brings up a plethora of articles and my friend who just got his phone has the issue too; mine doesn't), either when switching to front camera or when autofocus kicks in. Symptoms include shutter not opening once the app has been closed and reopened. There doesn't seem to be a fix to this issue and Apple simply replaces the faulty unit with a new one. Can someone add this to the article? I have no idea how to add citations to the article so my attempt at editing got obviously deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

please verify PlantRunner (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline has wrong shading[edit]

The iphone generational timeline is useful, but it has the wrong colours in the key. Eg. iphone 4 in the key shows iphone 3GS in the graph - 27 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This thing packs 512MB of RAM[edit]

Is that enough proof to post it into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The iPhone 4 article is a work in progress, and so many subjects have yet to be written about. The 512MB of RAM is currently included in the Infobox. I will include some more information about the RAM in the article as soon as possible.
Scott Bywater (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done – Scott Bywater (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken Page[edit]

An edit by appeared to "break" the entire article, causing it to display only an HTML error message. I just reverted to the previous version. Let me know if there was something important in the edit I undid. (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Release Date pushed back in some areas.[edit]

I live in Georgia and at my local AT&T store, they say that the release date for the phone has been pushed to the 29 because of the pre-order problems. Maybe this should be included as it may also be happening in other areas. EDIT: I actually just went to AT&T's mobile site and when you click to check the availability, the date has now changed to Tuesday the 29th —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


What about this one? HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who has one please take a picture of one without the wood reflection. It is distracting and possibly misleading as to the appearance of the front of the iPhone. Maddie talk 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Easier said than done: this thing reflects like nobody's business. I prepared a free desktop picture for anyone who wants to try. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I ordered mine on the 16th so I should be getting it next week and I will give it a try. I was just hoping that someone who already had one could try. Maddie talk 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a new image at the top of iPhone we could use, but I feel like the current one at least shows the hardware well. And it's an opportunity to use a different image; each one has strengths and weaknesses. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that one is great. It shows the hardware pretty well. It has a funny angle but it's the best we have. I think it works well for this article. Maddie talk 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Aido2002 feels that a straight-on shot does not work well for a flat, fairly featureless object, and although it goes against my gut, he might be right. Anyhow, my only quip is that the screen is off. And it's a white background against an off-white infobox. Oh well. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved doesn't mean what you think it does[edit]

The issue of the antenna isn't "resolved" by adding a bumper, it is "addressed" kindly stop being grammatically incorrect. E.G. If I argue with someone the argument isn't resolved by putting a wall between me and the person I am arguing with, it is merely addressed. It's simple enough English :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to add the following: "However, the issue can be addressed otherwise by adding a case, cover or bumper to the phone, this can arguably detract from the aesthetics of the device." - Not biased from the point of the author and leaves the debate open for discussion. I don't appreciate being said to use weaselly words either, that's just not cricket chap. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like I've jumped in on an edit war here, but the IP has a point, which seems to be pretty obvious to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with resolved/addressed, and have left the latter in place. However, citing aesthetics is subjective. An opinion. Ideally, finding a trade magazine that references it would help. Another part of the issue is that since you have two independent clauses, you need a semicolon to avoid a comma splice. (i just want grammatically correct articles.) Lastly, you had positioned your addition as if it was sourced to the Mashable article. (Anyone want to call us out on citing a tech blog? No? Okay. Shhh.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough, I should have done that at first. I've readded it for now separated by a semi-colon and with a citation needed tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's dicey because some people think think cases enhance the aesthetics, some people don't, and some people think people shouldn't use weasel words! But I'm okay with it at the moment, as long as a citation is found fairly soon. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a great fan of weasel words either, but I think its reasonable to expect that probably somewhere between 10 and 50% of users care reasonably much about their $600 smartphone having a case on it or not. To quote the perennial example from WP:WEASEL I don't think even 10-50% of people who live in Luton think its the nicest town in the world, let alone those who live somewhere else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have been cited, I move that this discussion is closed and the article left as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire topic ignores the CDMA (Verizon) antenna, its problems, possible amelioration (by tape? bumper case?), and performance. All I know is that (1) Consumer Reports says the Verizon version of the iPhone4 has the same loss-of-sensitivity problem, and that (2) a Verizon salesperson says there is no problem (surprise, surprise). This high-quality article needs to be extended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Added External Link to iFixit[edit]

I work for iFixit, and I just added an external link to iFixit's series of repair guides for the iPhone 4. The repair manuals iFixit shares have hundreds of Creative Commons-licensed, step-by-step repair photos and in-depth troubleshooting information. iFixit is the most respected online resource for Apple troubleshooting and repair, but don't take my word for it. The following article was published on the front page of the LA Times Business section on June 23rd 2010. iFixit has also received numerous other online reviews from the press and media which can be viewed here:

iFixit was the first to reveal all of the innards of the iPhone 4 two days before it was available in stores. iFixit's teardown photographs were published online by many news media outlets. Also, thousands of users have been able to successfully follow guides for the previous iPhone models. Already there are bloggers praising our iPhone 4 repair manuals

I feel that this page is incomplete without a link to the most comprehensive online resource for iPhone 4 repair, but I want to make sure to disclose my bias in adding the link. Please remove it if you think it is not useful.

Straife (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed the link as COI spam. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree that there is a COI at work, but that's not to say we should immediately write the link off as unacceptable; that would be ad hominem. I'll need to think about it more. In the mean time, the teardowns are used as references for information Apple does not supply (i.e. battery specs). HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Consumer Reports Counterpoint[edit]

So, I deleted the "some engineers refute Consumer Reports' study" claim for a few reasons:

  1. "refute" would mean that CS was proven flawed. At best, the provided source disputes the CR report, not refutes.
  2. It isn't even close to a reliable source. It's a private blog, by a person with 3 iPhones, blogging from his iPhone. (The 'private blog' part obviously being the most important) "Some guy with an iPhone" certainly can't be given equal (or, as it was phrased, greater) weight as Consumer Reports.
  3. It not only didn't include any tests that disproved the CR conclusions, but didn't even make sense. I mean, yeah, some did. But the assertion that you can't touch a phone... to see if touching affects its signal? Um, no.

That said, I do think it would be helpful if anyone could find a reliable source for a counterpoint. If one exists, of course. It just needs to meet certain standards to be included. (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I got confused with "refute" and "dispute", I should've used the latter term. And yes, a reliable source is needed, as while I'm lacking in engineering knowledge, my extensive knowledge of theoretical electromagnetism was enough to make me realize that the Consumer Reports "experiment" was a load of hogwash, further confirmed when I read about an actual antenna engineer thinking the very same thing. I was going to link an AppleInsider article, but figured the original source was more appropriate. --ZeromaruTC 23:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

duct tape - more effective than Apple's $29 Bumper appears to be synthesis[edit]

The CNN source which uses Consumer Reports as a source, is quoting the experience of an Apple blogger (Justin Horn) about about a rather bizarre comparison of getting better signal using an oven mitt, not duct tape as written in the article.

"Justin Horn, of the site, suggests iPhone 4 users should wear a type of oven mitt called the "Ove Glove" when they need to make calls. The thick glove prevents dropped calls, he says.

"This test produced the best results with zero signal loss, even trumping the results I got with the bumper earlier!" he writes, referring to the "bumper" iPhone 4 cases Apple sells on its site for $29."

Ward20 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Could we get a picture with the bumper?[edit]

Considering the fact that the 'bumper' is now, effectively, a part of the official hardware, I think it would be helpful to have at least one picture of the iPhone 4 in its bumper. Anyone here happen to own one (and a camera)? (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done – SHADOW4 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have a different definition of 'speculation'[edit]

The mention that Apple knew about the antenna defect before releasing the iPhone 4 was removed, with an edit summary declaring it 'speculation'. However, it was sourced. It's my understanding that you remove statements that editors are speculating, not sources.
In any event, it's a moot point, because even Jobs is admitting that they knew about it in advance. The only potential point of contention left over is whether they ignored it because Jobs chose aesthetics over engineering (one of the practices he's incredibly well-known for), or because they underestimated the problem. Still, it seems inappropriate to remove all evidence that they knew in advance, when the man himself has since admitted it, and it's been covered by reliable sources. :) (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue was not known about before the launch of the iPhone 4. During the Question and Answer section of the Press Conference held on 16 July 2010, Steve Jobs was asked whether the article was correct, and I believe his response was that the article is "total bull".
SHADOW4 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Steve Jobs also make the claim that Apple invented 'multi-touch'? (A flagrantly false claim)
In all seriousness, Apple has been immensely disingenuous and deceptive about this entire affair, going so far as to put up a page that supposedly shows the same problems with other phones (but including grips that no normal person would ever use).
More importantly, there's a NYT article saying he knew, and an AppleInsider article saying he claims to not have known. Even assuming that AppleInsider is a neutral and reliable source, we're still left with this: An issue with reasonable coverage on both sides. There's no need to take sides on this issue; we're simply obligated to acknowledge that it exists.
I'd say the article should include claims that they knew in advance (and use one of the several sources to that effect), as well as Jobs' counterclaim that not a single lefthanded person ever tested the phone before it was released. (btw, thanks for the bumper picture! I was starting to think nobody actually read the talk pages) (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete antenna issue[edit]

Propose to delete section on antenna issues. All mobile phones today have the an identical antenna issue, it's not notable at all. Do we want to put an "antenna issue" section in ALL mobile phone articles here in wikipedia? It is just that Apple is so famous that their antenna is scrutinized by the press, who need to put something in the papers everyday. This is NOT encyclopedic at all. Delete this, or put the same in all the other mobile phone articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh... no?
For several reasons:
  1. The wealth of reliable sources covering the issues makes it notable.
  2. The fact that Jobs has gone public repeatedly about it means that it's notable.
  3. Only Apple is saying that this problem is present in other phones. In actuality, other phones lose some signal when smothered, or to some extent when certain areas are touched, but not nearly to the same extent. Nor is it common for them to drastically lose signal when the only thing strange about how you're holding it is that you're left-handed.
So, unless you have an actual reason for wanting to remove it (or add useless irrelevant information to other articles)... yeah. I'd have to say 'no'. :)
(And remember, any reply will need to conform to policies on Reliable Sources, Undue Weight, etc.) (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The antenna issue should definitely be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It should be included, although I do believe that this is not isolated to just the iphone 4. But as a general note, this is just another example of wikipedia hypocrisy. The same arguments used on this thread about reliable sources are somehow ignored and dismissed on other pages. But I digress.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is limited to the iPhone 4 in terms of severity and location (if you only lost one bar when you grip it at the top, as isn't terribly uncommon, none of this would be an issue).
But, as for hypocrisy... I... don't understand, Jojhutton. Have you somehow been given the impression that an iPhone is a Living Person, and that this article is his Biography? (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have all come to the (correct) conclusion to leave it in, but the main reason that it is actually unique to iPhone 4 is that it's caused by actually directly touching the antennas, joining them with your finger. You can't do that with other phones because you can't touch them. It happens with a fingertip, while the issue that happens with other phones is that you have to actually cover the antenna completely. (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Only two finger gestures?[edit]

From the introduction, second paragraph: "Unlike the iPad, which can support up to eleven fingers, the iPhone 4 can only support two finger gestures." That seems unlikely, as my iPhone 3G will process at least four simultaneous touches. Colin Helvensteijn (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "two-finger gestures" since the way you said it means that it only recognizes two distinct gestures which are made with one's fingers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 frequency changes[edit]


I'm reverting your change to the quad-band section for a few reasons: HI

  1. There is no such thing as the 800Mhz band in GSM (see GSM frequency bands). It is the GSM850 band, though for a short while it was called 800Mhz in the US. Also note that GSM850 band covers from 824 -> 894Mhz.
  2. I scanned through that entire iPhone 4 FCC documentation that you referenced (thanks, BTW!) and nowhere does it appear to mention an 800Mhz band. In fact as far as I could tell it only tests the GSM850, GSM1900, Bluetooth and 2.4Ghz 802.11n outputs. (makes sense as GSM900 and GSM1800 are not available in the US).
  3. Apple's paltry user guide mentions 850, 900, 1800, and 1900 bands.

I would be happy to be shown to be incorrect, but feel free to point out the page in the FCC documents that you referenced, or another valid source. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the band edits and if you check my original edit, I never once added 800 MHz under GSM. However, under UMTS, there is indeed 800 MHz. The moment you add an 850 MHz (Band V) power amplifier to your mobile device, you automatically cover the 800 MHz (Band VI) band. See UMTS frequency bands for clarification (pay close attention to the ranges of the UL and DL of both).
Just because Apple omits certain information does not mean said device isn't capable.
TQM616035 PA (right side of the board):
TQM616035 datasheet:
FCC filing (because manufacturer datasheets aren't enough):
So the iPhone 3G and 3GS are both quad-band UMTS devices while the iPhone 4 is indeed a penta-band UMTS device (via the addition of Band VIII (900 MHz)).
I have already corrected the 3G and 3GS articles (yesterday). However, the main iPhone page needs to be corrected (it's locked). -- (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No first of all every 850 is not an 800. And yes before I reverted the original change by Libertyforall1776 I googled and also saw the Engadget article, but then I actually READ the FCC documents that were refered to. 800Mhz is just not there and (I know this will be shocking) but it looks like Engadget got yet another rumor wrong. Regardless of what a chip is capable of that doesn't say what the phone is capable of. Furthermore, I would think that Apple's documentation is the WP:PRIMARY SOURCE and would have to be considered definitive until they release or at least announce one operating in the 800 band, it cannot be considered an 800Mhz phone. Otherwise it is WP:CRYSTAL. If the chips are the prove for features, lets call the ipod Touch 3G 802.11n capable, but quite simply it too is not. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the FCC documents will only show the frequencies used in the United States. That's why there is only mention of WCDMA/UMTS 850 and 1900 along with GSM 850 and 1900. Anything else will be omitted apart from the user manual, which shows the same specs as on Apple's website. It is at the manufacturer's discretion if they would like to show all possible frequencies.
Example: FCC filing for the other penta-band (really hex/six) WCDMA/UMTS phone (Nokia N8):
Notice how only the U.S. frequency bands (GSM and WCDMA) for AT&T and T-Mobile are listed under "Modes of Operation." Nokia chose to add the extra information for outside of the U.S. below the table.
With respect to the iPhone 4, the Band VI (800 MHz) information may have been found through the MIC (Japan's equivalent to the FCC). Band V blankets Band VI in every way; it's the way it was setup by the 3GPP. If it didn't, I would like for you explain to me why NTT DoCoMo had 3G handsets two (2) years ago that supported WCDMA 850/2100 when their network operates on the WCDMA 800/2100 frequency bands?
Interestingly enough, users are reporting that the iPhone 3G and 3GS work just fine on NTT DoCoMo. Might I remind you of NTT DoCoMo's use of 2100MHz and 800MHz (FOMA Plus-Area).
For more "proof" of 800MHz operation, here is an iPad 3G running on NTT DoCoMo's FOMA Plus-Area network (Band VI - 800MHz):
The bottom line is: Don't believe everything that a company says about a certain product. Simply copying and pasting directly off of their website doesn't show good researching skills.
Apple still has not listed the official RAM size of the iPhone 4 yet it is still present in the article (I know how the info was acquired). Apple also does not list GPRS on their website, yet the FCC filing does; I am sure most of us have seen that little blue/gray circle next to our carrier's name [on the phone's status bar] at some point in time. -- (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: Here's a link to a teardown (Dec 29, 2008 18:02) of the iPhone 3G by Japanese website Nikkei Electronics. And I quote: "The company equipped the iPhone 3G with three units of TriQuint Semiconductor Inc's W-CDMA/HSDPA power amplifier/duplexer modules to support four frequency bands and make the handset usable all over the world."
Again, the three power amplifiers at the bottom:
-- (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oookay... maybe you can make this a bit simpler, fellow anonymous editor.
Clearly, drawing conclusions based on the chips within the device, and people's comments about reception in certain areas, would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Such conclusions are absolutely not includeable at all. So, do you have a single clear and concise reliable source definitively stating that 800MHz is one of the included bands? If yes, it should be included. If not, it can't be. (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh because "Tech-On!" ( isn't a reliable source? Or maybe even the manufacturer of the power amplifier (see TQM616035 datasheet above)?
The video clip I posted was of someone using the iPad on NTT DoCoMo's FOMA Plus-Are network. In case you weren't aware, FOMA Plus-Area only operates on the 800 MHz band. Some "technical" info: a smaller band frequency is usually better as the signal oscillates less per second, thus allowing further travel before the need of a cell tower. From there, I'm sure you can see where "Plus-Area" comes from. -- (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: The iPhone 4 has four WCDMA/UMTS power amplifiers at the bottom ( What I find odd (on Apple's part) is that two are from Skyworks and two are from TriQuint... With the same exact package. The larger Skyworks chip at the top is the quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE power amplifier (SKY77541). The four WCDMA/UMTS PAs have no specific information available at this time (in no particular order: SKY77452, SKY77459, TQM676091, TQM666092). They are for bands I, II, V (and VI), and VIII though. However, Skyworks and TriQuint do not make a band VI only power amplifier as band V covers VI. Their band V and VI chips have a single RF in and Rx out. & -- (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Um... you're doing precisely what I cautioned against: WP:SYNTHESIS. You're claiming that the phone works in X network, and obviously X network only uses 800MHz, therefore the iPhone supports 800MHz. That isn't good enough. You're making conclusions. You are then the 'source' of the 'fact' that it supports 800MHz. You can't do that.
Pictures of what chips it contains are not sufficient. Claims of people getting reception in certain areas are not sufficient.
Show a reliable source explicitly stating that the iPhone 4 supports 800MHz and it can be included. If you can't make the claim without requiring that I cross-reference across multiple sources and then draw a conclusion, then it can't be included.
This is not up for debate. It is the explicit policy here that you can't synthesize facts from multiple sources (or multiple disconnected statements from a single source). So, one last time: Name your single reliable source. (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Now my reply will be twofold. One: If you don't understand how a power amplifier works, then you shouldn't start invoking WP:SYNTHESIS. I understand your example perfectly and I agree 100%, but it cannot be applied to this kind of IC... at all. I will not go into the technical specifics; there are institutions for that.
Two: If you're going to spend the time to reply with a somewhat lengthy "post," at least take the same time (if not more) to peel back your eyelids and read my emboldened text.
And I requote myself: EDIT: Here's a link to a teardown (Dec 29, 2008 18:02) of the iPhone 3G by Japanese website Nikkei Electronics. And I quote: "The company equipped the iPhone 3G with three units of TriQuint Semiconductor Inc's W-CDMA/HSDPA power amplifier/duplexer modules to support four frequency bands and make the handset usable all over the world."
-- (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The 800 MHz band is a subset of the 850 MHz band. See UMTS frequency bands. Therefore, any phone supporting the 850 MHz band also supports the 800 MHz band everywhere were laws of physics apply. So the iPhone is a quad-band, not penta-band, UMTS device, just like every 850/1900 MHz phone are dual-band, not tri-band, even if they also support the 800 MHz band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 5MP Camera Yellow White balance + Blue Hue Spot[edit]

Hello. I am trying to edit the article in order to add this issue to the phone. There is a very big discussion in "apple forums" here: regarding this issue and I believe is being so popular that we should add it. I personally have an iPhone 4 with this issue and even with the replacement I still have the problem. What is actually happening is that when you take a picture indoors the white balance is too yellow, and it also adds a blue hue/spot in the middle. (some examples here: ) Can anyone please add this data to the main article?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can add this information yourself. However, you need to cite the information with verifiable, third-party sources so that it won't be deleted. Please see WP:Citing sources for help with this. Additionally, consider creating an account to ease editing, and please type ~~~~ after your comments to automatically sign them. Thanks, and feel free to post on my talk page if you need any more help. GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Should info about Ruben Caballero (and Jonathan Ive) be added top the Antenna section of the article?[edit]

Quote from WSJ:

One of the people familiar with the situation at Apple said that, typically, Apple's industrial design chief, Jonathan Ive, works closely with lead antenna engineer Ruben Caballero in the early stages of an iPhone's development to make sure the design is compatible with the intended function of the phone, and some prototypes have been killed because of issues that emerged as a result.

On Thursday, Bloomberg News reported that Mr. Caballero had raised concerns about the antenna to Mr. Jobs. In response to the article, an Apple spokesman said, "We challenge Bloomberg BusinessWeek to produce anything beyond rumors to back this up. It's simply not true." A spokesman for Bloomberg News said it stands by its story.

Added to Talk:iPhone by LP-mn and transferred here by HereToHelp. 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Iphone units sold at 6 million?[edit]

I clicked on the link that acted as a reference to this sentence at the infobox ([1]) but it doesn't actually say 6 million anywhere. I tried to look around the web but was not able to find a figure of how many iphones have been sold at the 6 million range (I see 3 million since July 16: [2]). Anyone able to find a source for the 6 million?Calaka (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Iphone 4 is just another funny useless mobile phone. Check mobile phone “H'andy sana 210”, Electrocardiogram-Equipped Cell Phone Allows Remote Monitoring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The 14.1M units is wrong. Article linked refers to 14.1M iPhones total sold in Q4 of 2010, not total iPhone 4's sold since launch.Wowserpockets (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's listed at 30.3 million sold, but the refrence only shows the number of iphones sold in the quarter, 14.4. I would suggest removing the figure till a relible source gives the accuall number.

Source for Aluminosilicate glass issue[edit]

Hello, I think this SquareTrade report could source passage about Aluminosilicate glass issue. Pamputt (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Future - iPhone 4s[edit]

Can someone mention the iPhone 4s. It's a rumor of a possible succesor to the iphone 4 Anish9807 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apple introduced the best iphone currently. With iphone4 its integrity was poor as hackers was able to pass the security functions, but with iphone5 and the latest iphones its more like a challenge to the best hackers in the world. What I can say there is a future on apple smart phone devices are there are currently safe as compared to android devices. Nlakidzi (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DST Bug[edit]

How comes there's no info on that awful DST bug: (random url picked from a google search of "iphone dst bug"). All european users are victims! (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Light leakage rumors[edit]

I was thinking about adding to the release section that there has been a lot of speculation surrounding the delayed white iphone 4 such as light leakage affecting the camera quality. Any constructive feedback is welcome, thanks! Onaclearday (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I would also include something about the increasing number of people who are modifying their phones. Socalmostaaa (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

VP of iPhone Hardware Design[edit]

I thinking about adding something about VP of iPhone Hardware Design, , stepping down shortly after the antenna problem. Him being in charge of the antenna's design. I would add this to the section on the antenna problems. What do you guys think? Socalmostaaa (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


iPhone 4 will have Verizon support as of Feb. 10 ( will probably keep displaying this info, but it's not suitable for a ref because they change the content). The article should include this. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It includes it. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire topic ignores the CDMA (Verizon) antenna, its problems, possible amelioration (by tape? bumper case?), and performance. All I know is that (1) Consumer Reports says the Verizon version of the iPhone4 has the same loss-of-sensitivity problem, and that (2) a Verizon salesperson says there is no problem (surprise, surprise). This high-quality article needs to be extended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

CDMA Page?[edit]

Should the CDMA Verizon iPhone have its own Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral725 (talkcontribs) 23:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is still the iPhone 4. Do the Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant and Epic 4G have separate pages? No, but they are more different than the two versions of the iPhone 4. (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Should have it's own defined section. Got some differences. Different antenna design. It forced the mute slider down, therefore the bumper does not fit the CDMA iphone 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Second microphone[edit]

Whys is there nothing on the noise-canceling microphone ? Overrated ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there isn't one present? (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There is indeed a second noise-canceling mic. I'll investigate. HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There are certainly 2 microphones, but neither has any feature which would make it noise cancelling. Since the microphones are ECMs (which are not noise cancelling by design) a noise cancelling mic would require a second mic to pick up the ambient noise. (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
So the second mic is not noise-canceling in and of itself, but used for noise cancellation (by picking up the ambient noise). Got it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Try not to be so condescending when responding to other contributors.
It's a nice theory, but do you have any evidence that this is so. Even if Apple had provided this feature, It would surprise me greatly if it was actually effective to any degree, because a noise cancelling mic requires that the two microphones have the same acoustic characteristics. There is no way that the two microphones in the iPhone can meet that requirement. Further, they will not, of course, have any significant effect on wind noise. Finally, if they were truly noise cancelling, then any video recorded on the phone would be silent except for sound sources very close to one microphone or the other.
Can someone with editing rights remove the offending paragraph from the article as unsourced material as per WP:VERIFY. (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The second microphone is indeed for noise cancellation. As noted above, the second microphone will have very different electro-acoustic characteristics and therefore should be totally unsuitable for the task. Apple claim that there is some clever circuitry at work which overcomes the limitation. Practical use of an iPhone verifies that the noise cancellation is somewhere close to useless - background noise is easily heard over the conversation. Indeed, the iPhone 4 has the worst acoustical properties that I have ever encountered in a mobile phone - the other party's voice is muffled (poor HF response) and they sound like they are gargling (cause unknown). It's a great shame that more effort wasn't expended in providing sound quality comparable with even the cheapest mobile phones. The second mic does have another real purpose. It is exclusively used when making videos using the built in camera app. It is not clear why Apple chose to use the second microphone, but maybe they thought that the bottom microphone might be obstructed when it is used as a camera. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - Units Sold[edit]

The references given for units sold in the Infobox don't support the data. The press releases used as references both refer to all models of the iPhone currently on sale, both the 3GS and the 4. I have not yet found a reference that specifically breaks out iPhone 4 sales from overall iPhone sales. If someone else can find one, please update the data and the reference. Rather than remove the information from the infobox, I have commented it out for now. Ch Th Jo (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have not been able to find such a source, and I've looked. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
There's another post on this talk page above on this issue. Since its been discussed by a few of us and still remains unresolved after a two months I'm taking the data out. I'm all for WP:PRESERVE, but in this case the data is just plain incorrect and we can't seem to find the reference we need to fix it.Ch Th Jo (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Several kinds of gyroscope are in contemporary use. I'll guess that the 4 uses a fiber optic gyroscope. Someone please add this information and link to the appropriate article. Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on a guess, I don't think so. My guess is an a acoustic gyro (smaller), but I wouldn't even think of adding that to an article. (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rickwise, 24 July 2011[edit]

The "Display" section discusses an apparently minor controversy about calling the display a "Retina Display." This is Apple's term, and is based on a statement that the resolution is high enough that the human eye can't resolve more than the display can show, at 12 inches.

The second last paragraph is a reference to Raymond Soneira disagreeing with Apple's statement.

The last paragraph describes support for Apple's statement by Phil Plait. However, the point Phil Plait makes, which is quoted in that last paragraph, is the eye only has higher resolution than the iPhone if the user's vision is better than 20/20. The point that Phil Plait apparently misses is that it's quite common to have eyesight better than 20/20. This is pointed out in Wikipedia's article on Visual Acuity. Table 1 at page 18 of this document show over 40% of people of both sexes age 18-34 having 20/15 or 20/10 or better vision.

So instead of:

However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine."[38][39]

I request:

Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine."[38][39] This appears to show some misunderstanding of what 20/20 eyesight is, which is the minimum for normal vision. [reference to] In fact, more than 40% of people aged 18-34 have better than 20/20 vision. [reference to]

Rickwise (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done Unfortunately, we are forced to keep the current wording unless a reliable source corrects Plait. Otherwise we would be violating Synthesis, a form of original research. Marcus Qwertyus 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the request, and add that Plait's qualifications aren't sufficient specialization in real perceptual optics to overcome an argument from common sense and experience.
Because all electronic images are rasterized, they can contain artifacts not seen on common visual test images printed at very high (>1000 ppi) resolution. If a sharp edge is near-aligned with the column or row of a rasterized image, there will be the tell-tale stair-step artifact.
Furthermore, the reason why 300 ppi was amped up to 600 ppi in desktop printers in the 90s was because people could see perfectly well the difference, even apart from edge-effects. Plait strangely, forgets or does not understand the dynamic rôle the fovea can play in resolving granularity in images by tiny movements across the image. He's treating the eye as a 'dead camera'. Finally, it was an interesting revelation when the astronauts reported seeing details in earth features that where well below the static resolving power of the eye. It took some time to for experts to come up with the correct explanation. This stuff is very old history.
I vote the Plait reference be removed altogether. He's fine as an astronomer and debunker, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. JohndanR (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Designer Needs mentioning as a matter of best practice.[edit]

I've gone ahead and included the designer in the opening paragraph as products always include the designer.Twobells (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoever keeps removing Jonathan Ive as the designer without discussion please stop otherwise its just vandalism.Twobells (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be under the misconception that the citation rule doesn't apply to you and that you can add whatever you like without citing a reliable source. Afterwards when a editor ultilises a basic right given to anyone on Wikipedia, you call them vandals. Let's get something straight, you've been doing this for several months already, editing in such a manner again constitutes your edits as unconstructive thus warrants warnings, consider this your first. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Frequency response?[edit]

The infobox says Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz. I have a rather hard time beleiving such a small device could deliver 20Hz at the same volume/level as for instance 10kHz. Added a [citation needed] for that Rkarlsba (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A frequency response specification such as 20Hz - 20kHz has never meant that 20Hz or 20kHz will be the same volume as (say) 10kHz. It just means that the speaker is capable of emitting tones overe the claimed frequency range, no matter how loud or quiet. The {citation needed} tag is unecessary because the reference for the claim is Apple's specification (which covers every Apple claim reiterated in the article). You would need a {citation} if you claimed Apple's claim was false. I can't delete it, but could someone else oblige. (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

CDMA2000 instead of CDMA?[edit]

Both UMTS and CDMA2000 use CDMA. So there is the GSM/UMTS and CDMA2000 models — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Storage size is now 8 GB?[edit]

It seems that the original iphone 4 models (with 16 GB and 32 GB) have been replaced with a new 8 GB model if I understand the apple store correctly. I assume that it has to do with the introduction of iphone 4s. According to [iPhone 3GS] the same thing happened with it, when the iphone 4 was introduced. Perhaps someone else can verify this, and update the article? I'm currently overworked (tired) and not natively english so I would prefer not to do it... SleepySv (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

iPhones in space[edit]

umm... is it just me or does this not seem notable? and "a special app"? I had to follow the reference to find anything out about it! Robodoggy (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012[edit]

"However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine."[45][46]"

In Regards to the Definition of Average Human Eyesight

20/20 visual acuity is considered “normal” vision, but this is a nominal value, meaning 20/20 vision represents an accepted condition which is a goal as opposed to the real or exact value. 20/20 vision merely implies that a person can read at 20 feet a letter that most human beings should be able to read at 20 feet.

The classic Snellen eye chart was created in 1862 by Dutch Ophthalmologist, Dr. Hermann Snellen.

"August Colenbrander, M.D. (Smith-Kettlewell Eye research Institute and California Pacific Medical Center) states that, contrary to popular belief, 20/20 is not actually normal or average, let alone perfect, acuity. Dr. Snellen, he says, established the chart as a reference standard. Normal acuity in healthy adults is one or two lines better. Average acuity in a population sample does not drop to the 20/20 level until age 60 or 70. This explains the existence of the two lines smaller than 20/20: 20/15 and 20/10." (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 4 camera given "iSight" branding[edit]

Please add the detail that the iPhone 4 is also known as an iSight camera. If you don't believe me, just Google it for yourself. Apple rebranded the iPhone 4 + 4S cameras as iSight cameras following the event last Wednesday. (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not around here they haven't. (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Retina Display Distance[edit]

The criticism formulated against Retina under the Display is centered around the idea that the resolution of the eye is not met at 12 inches. However, I distinctly remember Jobs mentioning a distance of 10 inches during his iPhone 4 presentation. Again during the iPad 3 ("new iPad") presentation, the 10 inches figure was brought up. The criticism may still hold true, but it seems inaccurate. Zecanard (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please show the math of how they came to the dpi?
LP-mn (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Very unbalanced article.[edit]

This article lacks balance and hardly mentions any criticisms of the product.

Example criticisms:

  1. Although the phone can convert data to speech for outgoing calls ("Calling Mr. Jones, Mobile") it can't announce the caller for incoming.
  2. It can't display the company of a caller.
  3. It can't record calls.
  4. The caller picture size for incoming calls is not logically determined.
  5. It is not possible to limit certain heavy data apps to WiFi only.

etc. etc.

I'm not anti-iPhone and love mine, but with all positive and little negative this article is nowhere near NPOV.

Too many fanboys and Apple employees on WP? (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As those critisisms are your POV, they cannot be included. I have several critisms as well, some of which are not just mine, but I would not expect then to be included in the article unless they gained some sort of notability in the mainstream media. (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
98% of all cell phones can't do any of things either. How is that controversial towards the iPhone 4? My iPhone 4s can't get up in the morning and make me coffee either, but it can wake me up and remind me to make coffee. Much better than the year 1908.JOJ Hutton 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

what's the 'slate' nonsense in the first sentence?[edit]

Apple don't call this touch screen phone a slate. A slate is a type of tablet computer. Where is the reference cited for this? I suggest removing the unnecessary word.X4n63r (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the introduction of tablets, slate was a form factor used to describe devices with minimal physical buttons and featured a touchscreen as its main input method. However the initial release of the iPad probably changed the connotations of that word to describe tablets specifically rather than all touchscreen devices. I support removing it from all iPhone articles as the word no longer or was never valid as no one could source the claim with reliable references. However I would advise you to establish a consensus at the Telecommunications Wikiproject or the Apple Wikiproject as I remember having this same debate a year ago on this very article, a majority of editors supported keeping slate as a term to describe the iPhone and most Android, WP7 devices. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks YuMaNuMa. I have tried to add a new topic at the Apple Wikiproject; it seems to be dead? Is the Telecommunications Wikiproject really the correct place for having a discussion about mobile device form factors? It seems to be heavily into communications protocols. Do you have any other suggestions for places where I could try and spark a debate about this? Thanks.X4n63r (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can a confirmed user please add a citation for me for the Apple A4 Intrinsity design?[edit]

.. Under Hardware:Processor and memory "The iPhone 4 is powered by the Apple A4 chip, which was designed by Intrinsity". Add the following as a ref for the design win by Intrinsity:

Apple's Intrinsity Acquisition

Thanks. I 'aint allowed to edit this (excellent) page.X4n63r (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think this site meets WP:RS. Mdann52 (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Anandtech is a very long lived and well respected technology website. I'd like you to reconsider, please. Perhaps check out the wikipedia entry for (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I listed this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Anandtech. I'd like to get some other thoughts on this before we add it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome; I didn't know that existed. Thanks for your help.X4n63r (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem, on a happy note, you can edit this page now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

New Image?[edit]

How about a new image?

File:IPhone 4.jpg
This ones good enough

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhu12 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The clock speed in the iPhone 4 has not been disclosed.[edit]

How come the Apple_A4 article lists it (800MHz) while this one basically still says "no clue"..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


How to get Free on iphone 4 Tompkins321 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You cannot redeem yourself a free iPhone without begging, stealing or robbing from another person who owns an iPhone or any means of getting one for you without cost. Other ways of getting an iPhone include participating in lucky draws that do not require the spending of any amount of money of any currency with iPhone featured as the prize or committing arson and thereafter rob the Apple Store after all others have evacuated (highly discouraged as this poses serious risks and danger to you and others and violates the law). Alternatively, you may want to get a paid job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)