Talk:Linksys iPhone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments on deletion[edit]

This page was apparently deleted because it was only rumors. Well, Apple has just [ordered twelve million] of them. Chris Gore 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's on slashdot - it must be true! 70.48.45.199 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Slashdot is always right. BuBZ 05:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still only rumors, but this time they're more official. I don't think that this page is ready to be recreated yet though, I think we should wait for an official confirmation instead of some dodgy leak. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

indeed, i had spent so much time on the original article over the past year and then they delted it, i still have it all backed up and you can bet your hat i will whack it up the second it is released Nickcirc 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't a Wikipedia article desribe rumours? Can't it just say it's a rumour? --84.82.26.233 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

see i put forth the argument that there was information beyond a resolable doubt that the iPhone would be released they did not go for it :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPhone Nickcirc 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that Wikipedia should deal with all phenomens in the world. If iPhone is not a product, it is still an interesting social encounter, and should as such still get an article, discussing e.g. the fanatism or desire of Apple fans around the world. Several million hits on Google for something not existing, should still be considered in Wikipedia. Would you delete an entry for "God", because this concept is also only a rumour? Thyl Engelhardt

People differ on what constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". By Wikipedia terms, beyond a reasonable doubt means that a Reliable Source (slashdot doesn't even come close) reports that Apple themselves have announced the product. Third-parties speculating or predicting that Apple is likely to release the product are not acceptable. If we start reporting rumors, where would it stop? Somebody posts a guess in a blog somewhere and we create an article on it? No. Information here has to be Verified and reliable fact. There are plenty of places to post rumors, guesses, speculation. This isn't one. Fan-1967 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There isn't such a thing as a reliable fact. We should allow it here as soon as we can site external references. Mathiastck 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please verify the existence of God, cause i'm having a hard time here...it's one thing to not have articles on completely outlandish and obscure, made-up products, yes. But this isn't the case here. —lensovettalk – 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Go read the article. Note that it doesn't verify the existence of God, but rather reports on the subject using references (though I will admit it needs more inline references for the various claims made in it). Wikipedia is not here to verify the existence of anything, but rather to report on a topic using verifiable and reliable sources. Bringing things back to this article, until some verifiable sources show up for the iPhone, this article will not be allowed to exist here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, you have not understood my remark. The iPhone is no product, and certainly, an article in Wikipedia should not focus on such a nonexistent product. But the romours of its approaching release, over and over again, and the discussions of what features it should have etc., do exist. This is what should be reflected in an article, since it clearly is a cultural phenomen existing. Thyl Engelhardt.

You want to create an article about rumors? How can any information about rumors be considered reliable? Everything about this is from forums and blogs, for the most part unsourced or speculative. So if I go post in a few forums that I've heard the IPhone is going to be pink with blue polka dots, can I then come back here and put in the article that there are rumors it will be pink with blue polka dots? That's what you end up with if you try to report rumors. Fan-1967 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
San Francisco Chronicle, International Herald Tribune, BusinessWeek, Forbes, Houston Chronicle. None of these links are to "forums and blogs", in fact, they actually point to exactly where they're supposed to, and they are all articles talking spefically about the 'iPhone.' These "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" and the fact that a Google search for iPhone returns 5,830,000 hits, seem to be proof that this product, no matter how likely or unlikely it's release may be, is indeed notable. tmopkisn tlka 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we create an article about rumors, if they are reported by reliable sources? Certainly there are articles about the Yeti and Loch Ness Monster. Nihonjoe pointed out that the article on God "reports on the subject using references.... Wikipedia is not here to verify the existence of anything, but rather to report on a topic using verifiable and reliable sources". There are dozens of reliable sources out there (for example, this AP article reporting on it, and their reporting is based on journalistic sources ("an unnamed player in the island's cell phone component sector as its source"); also reports on patents are not based on speculation, but verifiable documents. I think the iPhone article is ripe for undeletion. In any case, I've started an article in my userspace until we can get it on to mainspace: User:Schi/iPhone — please feel free to contribute there. Schi 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, if "an unnamed player" in Taiwan confirms it, that's practically gospel, isn't it? Every one of the news sources cited is actually the same report: that a Taiwan newspaper quotes an unidentified source. Fan-1967 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you saying it's not a legitimate journalistic practice to use an unnamed source? Because if that's the case, we sure have a huge amount of sources we need to throw out of Wikipedia. Schi 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite any articles that have nothing but a single, unnamed source? Fan-1967 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, do you want me to waste my time looking for one? Let's try to stay on topic here. The point is that it's not Wikipedia's business to do fact-checking for newspapers; if they meet the requirements of WP:RS, that's good enough. If the AP runs it, I think it's reasonable to believe it. In any case, the other point is that it's totally acceptable to cite reliable sources reporting on analysis/"speculation". This Wired article, for example, cites an analyst. Sure, the analyst isn't holding the iPhone and telling us about what he sees, but that's no reason to discount it. It's a legitimate authority reported by a legitimate, reliable source. That's like saying you shouldn't cite any articles about what political analysts are saying about the outlook for the 2008 presidential election. Schi 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference of course, is that we have rock-solid verification that there will be a 2008 election. You want to get around the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy by saying, in effect, let's do an article about other people crystal-balling. Fan-1967 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind WP:AGF (and WP:CIVIL). I don't characterize it as crystal-balling, which the policy refers to as "unverifiable speculation". I don't believe the iPhone analysis is unverifiable, and I believe you could just as reasonably call it "analysis" as you could call it "speculation". Also note that the policy says: "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." I acknowledge that this is up for interpretation. In any case, and as I have asked Nihonjoe on his talk page, I would at least like to see what was previously on this page so I can incorporate it on my userspace article until we get more sources. Schi 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. The problem is that it's one thing to have analysis based on the facts. What I see here is speculation (and an occasional unnamed source) so I don't see the facts to hang the analysis onto. As for what was previously on the page, my recollection is that it was totally unsourced, and not much more than a stub. I doubt you'll find anything of value there. Fan-1967 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys is it really so hard to wait untill it appers on apples site?, There is NO statement from Steve Jobs either in interview or on Apple PR site, therefore there is no Wikipedia Article, Nickcirc 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All i want to say is that people tend to forget that this is an encyclopedia, not a technology blog where you can speculate on rumours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.45.100 (talkcontribs) .

Should be recreated[edit]

I don't think this article should ever have been deleted. Even if it is onlly a rumored product, it is certainly notable. Much speculation has been generated on various blogs, and according to MarketWatch the iPhone is one of the main reasons why Apple's stock price has gone up. Theshibboleth 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to the progress on User:Schi/iPhone. The article will likely be undeleted once an acceptable article has been created there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for undeletion[edit]

I request that a sysop temporarily undelete this article so that we can review whether deletion policy was correctly followed as per "Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. (temporary undeletion)" from Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Theshibboleth 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article contents were placed here per Schi's request above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it will be nice to be able to work on the article some although that still doesn't allow me to verify that the article was deleted properly. Theshibboleth 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to ask any other admin to look at the deletion history. It had been deleted about 6 times previously, and the same information kept being reposted. As such, it was a candidate for speedy deletion as a repost of identical or nearly identical deleted material. Therefore it was speedy deleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm still requesting that the page be temporarily resurrected so I can look at what was there. Policy more or less says that I have the right to see the text. Theshibboleth 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've already made the same request; Nihonjoe put the old article here: User talk:Schi/iPhone, as he said above. schi talk 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article deleted?[edit]

Of course it is totally stupid to have deleted this article

  • we must talk about rumors
  • BUT indicate it is rumors

I hope administrators will recreate this article ASAP, wikipedia is NOT their property...Jfayel 20:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unicorns[edit]

There is a HUGE page on unicorns, and I think it's pretty much agreed on unicorns don't exist. In fact, I'd say with certainty that there are more people who believe (or claim to believe) in the iPhone than there are people who believe in the unicorn (at least now). SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING A PAGE ABOUT A RUMOR, AS LONG AS YOU MAKE CLEAR IT IS A RUMOR AND THEREBY GIVE COMPLETELY TRUE INFORMATION? No doubt when the article on Unicorns was first written, there were plenty of rumors still circulating in world (not counting children, of course, but still counting indigenous tribes etc) about unicorns.Kr5t 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unicorns aren't a rumor. They are an extremely well documented mythological animal that has been discussed and written about for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. The iPhone, however, is pure speculation about a product that may or may not ever be released. Apple is saying nothing about it at all other than issuing the occasional vague statement that may or may not refer to a future release of an iPhone. All of their statements can be interpreted multiple ways. I recommend, rather than bringing up apple-orange comparisons, that if you want to see an article on the iPhone that you assist those working on it over here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There is one more difference. Everyone knows unicorns aren't real. When it comes to iPhone, seems people can't tell the difference between speculation and fact. Fan-1967 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I contest the characterization of "speculation" (there are plenty of reliable source press reports that refer to analysts' predictions, "experts say", etc., i.e. research that is predictive in nature), but I doubt I'll change y'all's minds. Why are articles like Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election not "pure speculation" about campaigns that may or may not ever materialize? (Because it's actually just research that's predictive in nature?) In any case, do the nay-sayers have any comments on the current status of the User:Schi/iPhone article? schi talk 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the 2008 election article is likewise speculation. The amount of actual verifiable information there is minimal. (Remember that in late 1990, most of the US had never heard of Bill Clinton.) Doesn't excuse another speculative article. Can we produce an article that gives people authoritative, verifiable information about what the iPhone 'will be (not what experts predict it's likely to be)? No. All you can say is that these are well-educated guesses from people who know the industry. Not the same as facts.Fan-1967 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
the truth is, the iPhone is widely speculated by many analysts, and it's in the news every other day. it's WP's job to report on notable rumor and speculation, so long as WP is a third party looking down on the information. Scepia 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I know that one article's existence doesn't excuse another article's, I'm just trying to draw an analogy, or get someone to show me a distinction to prove me wrong. The key distinction is that they are facts; the article contains facts about what credible authorities have reported. Same thing with unicorns, potential presidential candidates, or the predicted effects of global warming: it is a fact that reliable sources report about them; the things they report about them are not necessarily "facts", in that they may not be materially true. Factual accuracy isn't the issue (we trust reliable sources to be credible), and obviously, neither is materiality (unicorns), it's notability. The fact that Apple hasn't confirmed the iPhone rumors is irrelevant to the question of whether the subject merits an article. Official endorsement by a corporation is not the bar for what merits inclusion in Wikipedia; notability is much more relevant here, and it has been exhaustively proven that the iPhone is notable in terms of media coverage. WP:NOT says: "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." The reliable source coverage of the iPhone embodies such credible research. schi talk 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, okay, bad example. The potential republican one is way better, and I like Schi's argument. Also, I would like to add that, according to common sense, the reason we don't want articles on mundane subjects that nobody's gonna look up is that it's wasting space that must be paid for while being useless. Think about it, isn't that why we don't want people starting articles on themselves? And then, think about how many people are interested and would like to know about the iPhone. That's what wikipedia is for, for people to look up stuff. If it's something nobody's gonna look up, to hell with it, but if it's well-known and often asked about, then people expect to be able to look it up.Kr5t 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And it would be great for people to be able to look it up here, if we had anything definitive to tell them. All we can tell them is that there are a lot of rumors, and speculation, and educated guesses, about a likely product of this name. I'd rather not have the article until we can do better than that. Fan-1967 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

iphone?[edit]

I want to find out what an iphone is/is going to be or what it is rumored to be/what its rumored features are. I was disappointed to find no article about it here... Does anyone know where I can go to read about it? MartinDuffy 17:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Do a google search. You can find 18,000 different rumors. As for which ones will turn out to be true, no way to know. Fan-1967 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Cool. Please give me one then, I use an encyclopedia to expedite a search instead of having to sift through dozens of unreliable web pages, not to talk to egotists like you. 137.238.0.5 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem. There's no good way to determine which rumors or sites are reliable. Fan-1967 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The administrators will look realy stupid when it dose come out[edit]

The administrators will look realy stupid when it dose come out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.104.8 (talkcontribs)

Not at all. Wikipedia has no desire to be the first to report something. Only the most accurate. At this point, with nothing but speculation available, we can't yet produce an accurate and verifiable article. When we can, we will. (And by the way, when adding to a discussion, new comments at the bottom. I've moved yours.) Fan-1967 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

US Patent Application[edit]

A US Patent application for iPhone by Apple has been posted on the internet recently, we should examine this carefully to see if its genuine, and if it is, we should undelete this article. --Extra joss 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Iphone.jpg

Many patents are filed for products that don't come out, or which are significantly modified by the time they do come out. Be patient. This article will end up being recreated when we can provide firm, verifiable information about the product. That time has not yet come. Producing a photoshopped picture of what someone guesses the iPhone will look like does not come under the heading of verifiable information. Fan-1967 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what I said, verify the source first, and if it's a true story then undelete the article. That includes verifying the picture. --Extra joss 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
... and the source of the picture is...??? Fan-1967 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, just some blog. It's not necessary for the verification. If you find a similar picture from a verifiable source, like the Apple website, then it's a valid picture. --Extra joss 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
When Apple actually releases the product, might be interesting to see how close this artist's guess is. Fan-1967 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing Steve Jobs will design it differently. --Extra joss 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article undeleted[edit]

As I believe the article now meets WP:V and WP:N, the article has now been undeleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! schi talk 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's a smack in the face for the people who want this article deleted LOL --Extra joss 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the current article is significantly improved over the previous article, which is the reasoning I gave for undeleting it. I'm sorry if you believe it to be a "smack in the face," but if an article meets the requirements for inclusion, it should be allowed to exist. I beleive the current version of the article (as of my writing this) meets all the standards for verifiability and notability, and the sources referenced are reliable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right On!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.108.244.159 (talkcontribs).

A smack in the face is not something to be believed, but something to be enjoyed ROFL --Extra joss 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Future reference[edit]

···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened here?[edit]

So this article was undeleted, then made into a redirect. What? —lensovettalk – 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first version of the article, which was not up to snuff, was repeatedly deleted and recreated, and so was protected by Nihonjoe against recreation. I, with help from a couple others, worked up a new version on user space. I brought it up at deletion review on December 5 (not realizing that someone else had just brought it up on December 4). Nihonjoe unprotected it and moved the user space version to main space. Then, Zoe responded on deletion review that as of yet "rumored" is not a valid verification and speedy deleted the article (although it's unclear what criteria for speedy deletion it meets). I guess the deletion review is still ongoing? However, it's not getting a lot of discussion, and it's kind of impossible to evaluate the merits of the argument since there is no available copy of the contested material for editors to review. schi talk 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and then, I guess because the article is now unprotected, someone else created a redirect. schi talk 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Topic like this for a contemporary world of buzzing mp3 players, it cant be let empty! So I redirected to the company who "may" produce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salih Demiragh (talkcontribs) 15:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't understand why the redirect to Linksys was deleted. "iPhone" is a registered trademark of Cisco systems. Additionally, whenever an apple phone product does come out, we could add an appropriate dablink to the top of the "Linksys" page. --DDG 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How come iphone redirects to Linksys, but iPhone doesn't? Arnold Go 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --DDG 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be remade about the actual iPhone product? (not from apple)[edit]

An iPhone already exists. However, it is not from apple. See the story here http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/news/gizmos/story.html?id=ee82bef1-e58c-454b-b959-dac8aabd1e15&k=68995 Specialbrad 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on something. --DDG 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put together an article at IPhone/temp, dealing with the Linksys product, as well as with some information on the naming confusion. Please let me know if this is satisfactory, and I will move it into the main article space if no one has any objections. --DDG 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. EricNau 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an utterly non-notable product that only gets a WP article because of its name. the rumored Apple "iPhone" is much, much more notable than this product. hateless 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You took the words right out of my mouth. The Linksys iPhone will probably sell about 10 units, the cell phone from Apple, if released, will sell millions. Even if not released, it has created such a legacy... Scepia 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation page[edit]

what if the page was a combo Linksys iPhone / Apple iPhone page? then there will be enough content that the page is worthy of having a page, and the rumors about the Apple phone can be fewer. to deny this major speculation (albeit speculation) is just silly. common sense, people. Scepia 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to seriously wonder if Apple would use the name if another major company is releasing a product by that name. Too much consumer confusion. This article may finally exist for good, having nothing to do with Apple. Seems funny that all the rumors about Apple ignored the fact that Cisco already owned the name. Fan-1967 04:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
what name do you propose for this much-speculated (I never said true) product? the common name is iPhone, despite Cisco's ownership. it sure is easy to get away from having the article by saying the name is used. why not use cell phone (Apple), since the name (assuming the product exists) will most likely not be iPhone? what do you mean by consumer confusion? *cough* people will be awfully confused to see the Linksys iPhone when they want to hear about the Apple iPhone. I'm not proposing that we call any future Apple product fact, but when there are seriously SO many articles speculating about it, can't we address that speculation? this is not about WP editors' opinions. this is about the information. Scepia 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the "information" is that there has been a lot of speculation that Apple's releasing a product called the iPhone. So the speculation is now going to have to start some guessing about what Apple's going to call the product. I really can't see them putting an Apple iPhone on the shelves next to a Linksys iPhone, even if they can somehow get around the trademark issue. Fan-1967 05:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
that's why I say the article should be cell phone (Apple). Scepia 05:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Fan-1967, (and apologies for quibbling, but) for the record, the rumors did not ignore the fact that Cisco already owned the name. That was often mentioned when the story broke about Apple registering the name in Australia and Singapore. schi talk 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
They both should be combined into the same article because they are very intertwined together in current events and are very similar. Ruw1090 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple_Records = Linksys. {disambiguation = yes.}[edit]

I do suspect that if they could work-it w/ one, then, it's likely that tey could do the same w/ others. That's just a guess.

&, please do disambiguate it.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 19:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Still Marked For Deletion ?[edit]

Why is this page still carrying a deletion banner? Can that be done away with at this point? That way people like me who don't even really care about technology would not be seduced into reading this inane discussion only to find that it has been seemingly resolved and that the page shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. 66.245.149.79 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I read through the whole thing to find its not being deleted. I am removing the deletion banner. If it is still being considered for deletion, sorry, but it seems, according to this talk, that the article is staying--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The AfD has not been closed. Even if it's obvious that the vote is going to favor Keep, it's not correct to remove the template until it has been closed. This way, people can see that there is a discussion and contribute accordingly.
Mind you, I think it's daft anyone even nominated this one, but it's best to leave the template in place until the AfD is closed. -- Kesh 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
...and an admin Speedy Kept and closed the AfD, right after I voted for them to do so. Nice. Glad that's cleared up! -- Kesh 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion for deletion has been closed. Shouldn't the banner go now? --James968 10:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which banner? If you mean the one at the top of the Talk page, then no. That stays for the purpose of future reference. At least as long as the AfD results are accessible, I'd say. -- Kesh 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Dredged up from the AfD discussion, some sources that should be used to incorporate more info into the article:

schi talk 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Correct Page Titles[edit]

Given that the trademark has been registered and associated with shipped and supported products since 1996, and that since 2000 it has belonged to Cisco, it is tendentious as well as incorrect to title this page "iPhone (Linksys)" and the Apple page "iPhone".

Recommendation: Title this page "iPhone" and post a link at the top pointing to the Apple page, retitled "iPhone (Apple)". Alternative: Title each page with the company name in parentheses (using Cisco, not Linksys).

For background, see CNet: "Cisco sues Apple over use of iPhone trademark"Bn 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on Talk:iPhone. Also note that, regardless of who owns the trademark, WP:NAME is based on the article users are most likely to be searching for. At the moment, that would be Apple's model. I personally feel the articles should be named iPhone (Apple) and iPhone (Linksys) for consistancy, but the iPhone link should redirect to the Apple product. -- Kesh 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademark dispute[edit]

This section lists numerous legal strategies Apple could try, and all are slanted against Linksys. Either that content should be removed, or strategies of Linksys should also be presented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.141.251 (talkcontribs) 01:04, January 19, 2007

Agreed, it's rather one-sided at the moment. I don't think legal strategies have any place in the article, so I'm removing them. If anyone can think of a valid reason to have them and rework the section to be neutral, have at it. -- Kesh 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken in your analysis, Kesh et al. These are not "legal strategies". These are points of contention. Cisco has one basic argument--Cisco has a valid mark, registered by InfoGear in 1999. Apple is infringing on it. End of story. Apple clearly disagrees with this point, but they have multiple reasons for which the Cisco trademark can be declared invalid. This is not slanted against Cisco in any way--they must know what they are up against as much as Apple needs to know what the issues are. Would you say that when someone claims a breach of contract, the allegation is a "legal strategy" and is "slanted against" the party that is alleged to have breached? As for the appropriateness of the section here, let's be serious--no one ever would have heard of Cisco's trademark if Apple was not disputing it. There would be no Linksys iPhone Wiki entry if it were not for Apple. Cisco let the original iPhone die because they did not think it was marketable and they spuriously rebranded the Linksys line because they were hoping to squeeze Apple.--Lone.cowboy 08:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?[edit]

May I ask why this "Linksys iphone" have an aweful lot of Apple information on it? I say remove it and just talk about the current copyright infringement as the rest of the information doesn't belong in this article at all. Cdscottie 13:30, January 19, 2007

Copyright dispute? Perhaps that's why you don't know why "an aweful lot of Apple information" is in the article. There is a reason why the section is called Trademark Dispute--it's about trademarks, not copyrights. The main reason why Apple info creeps into the article is because it's about iPhone, not Linksys. One cannot talk about iPhone only in the context of Linksys--if trademark dispute did not arise, you never would have heard of iPhone. Comparing the Linksys products to InfoGear iPhone is also a joke--they have absolutely nothing in common (other than the fact that both involve some sort of telephony). And certainly neither InfoGear nor Linksys would have had an independent iPhone entry in an encyclopedia had it not been for the association of iPhone with Apple.
And one other thing--InfoGear filed a claim against iphones.com, but did not touch iphone.com or Apple's iphone.org. Why is that? Well, the iphones.com case was a slam dunk. The other two--not so much. Apple bought the domain name iPhone.org in 1999, but iPhone.com has been owned by The Internet Phone Company since 1995--long before InfoGear came up with the iPhone name for its product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lone.cowboy --Lone.cowboy 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)(talkcontribs) 05:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Having reviewed the changes made by CDScottie, I would also like to add that one should not make changes if he wishes to query the reason for inclusion of disputed material. And certainly, one should not make changes if he does not know what he is talking about. This is the unfortunate side effect of the freely editable distributed encyclopedia.
I also want to note that the changes to undo most of the discussion of Cisco v. Apple dispute seem to be made by Cisco zealots (and perhaps employees?) and, therefore, cannot be considered neutral. I have no dog in this race--I support neither Apple nor Cisco when it comes to product. The information I included comes from external sources and is supportable both by data and by legal standards. Cisco sat on a trademark for five years because it had no plans to use it. When it became inevitable that Apple was going to create an iPhone, Cisco decided to resurrect it. The trouble is, because of iPhone.com prior mark, despite the 1999 registration, the Cisco mark may well be invalid. It is in this context that the "Linksys iPhone" must be analyzed. It is inevitable. And earlier contributors knew it as well--they included the InfoGear description because Linksys legal claim, not its product is based on the InfoGear iPhone. If one wants to go on a crusade against the Apple info here, he should also erase the InfoGear information as well, since the Linksys iPhone in no way evolved from the InfoGear iPhone. I will undo CDScottie's changes in the intro because the article is no longer neutral--it clearly takes the side of Cisco in the legal dispute.--Lone.cowboy 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not taking sides. An excessive focus on the dispute when the article is supposed to be about the product is not neutral. This is the article about the linksys iPhone. Discussion about the iPhone trademark is not the primary topic of the article and is being given excessive weight. 130.58.242.116 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the introduction change. Lately Apple fanboys have been attacking the Linksys iPhone and there was a paragraph in this article dedicated to the Apple iPhone. This page is about the Linksys iPhone and should remain that way. Including a seperate section for the Apple iPhone just doesn't make any sense as there is a seperate page for the Apple product. Cdscottie 13:32, January 20, 2007

This is all very interesting but misguided. First, the characterization of "Apple fanboys" is offensive--does that make you a Cisco fanboy? Second, take a look at the iPhone entry. Two issues should strike you right there--the iPhone page refers to the Apple product, not Linksys product and there is a major section dedicated to the trademark dispute. That tell me that iPhone is associated with Apple, not Cisco and that trademark dispute is a legitimate topic to bring up in any discussion of iPhone. If Cisco flunkies are so annoyed getting wipped by "Apple fanboys", why don't you make a second disambiguation and just create a separate entry for the trademark dispute, then modify both pages to refer to it? As it stands at this moment, the information on this page is just wrong. The modified intro claims that the Linksys iPhone is a direct descendant of the InfoGear iPhone. This is patently untrue--there is absolutely no relation between the two sets of products other than the fact that both companies that made these products were acquired by Cisco (InfoGear in 2000 and Linksys in 2003). It's easy to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the world does not exist. That seems to be the strategy adopted by people who demand that no mention of Apple be made in this entry. My goal in modifying this article is actually to preserve the history of the iPhone trademark by making the entry relevant. Otherwise, if (more likely, when) Apple's challenge succeeds, this page will have to be removed since Cisco will drop the iPhone label. Use your heads, people! Don't be zealots.--Lone.cowboy 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, I actually don't mind the trademark section. What I didn't like seeing was a topic on the page called "Apple iPhone". This article is about the Linksys iPhone and has nothing to do with the apple product except for the trademark issue. I removed the "Apple iPhone" section and changed the intro do to it was mentioning the apple iPhone to much for a page dedicated to Linksys. Cdscottie 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Redirect Page[edit]

Important or not, it is evident that the Apple iPhone page will receive much more traffic than the Linksys iPhone page. So why not redirect the "iPhone" page to the Apple iPhone page instead of the Linksys page? Arius Maximus 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. AlistairMcMillan 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)