Talk:IPod/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Top 10 iPod questions

Is this section really neccessary? I mean, its hardly encyclopeadic and doesn't even answer these 'top 10' questions. --81.97.194.11 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) No, not really. Just wait for someone to remove it. Like a MODERATOR.

File Format

After checking on the apple site i have not found anthing that indicates that the ipods operate using NTFS at all indeed after reading [1] and [2] -- it seems that they operate in either HFS+ or FAT32 only i apologise for any formating errors above :)Tacticus.V1 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a sneaky form of vandalism. Happens a lot.--IE 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Removed

Some weird vandalism involving a generic image and the text "BOYS ARE SEXY!!!!!!" showed up under the Open-source alternatives section. I have removed it. -- Ubergenius 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone pls look at the current history section and revert it - tiny bit of vandalism there - --203.10.224.60 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)wow that was quick - just finished typing this and it was gone! Props!--203.10.224.59 07:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone put the text "IPOD SUCKS DICK!!!" in the History section. Someone else beat me to removing it though. Cleverfool 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There it is again! "IPOD SUCKS DICK!!!!!!!!" in the history section, again! Can someone check this out? Cleverfool 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed another bit of vandalism. The word newb was writen in all caps, and spread accross a large section of the page. You can see my revisions in the history page of the article. -- ModernTenshi04 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The battery life issue

This is surly one of the biggest scams this side of centuary. I am horrified that they still sell so well when you can't replace the battery.

And yet you can replace the battery. I saw some replacement battery kits on sale today at Future Shop here in Canada, complete with little tools to open the thing up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blonde2max (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you did see some battery kits, but they probably won't function well and the iPod will probably be permenantly damaged if not destroyed by these alterations. Just warning you. Demosthenes 1 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is lovingly inflammatory. iPod batteries (with the exception of 5G and nanos) are very replaceable. It requires opening the iPod, which usually means some slight (if done carefully) damage to the chrome backing. Any clumsiness or brash actions while in the iPod's internals can result in damage, but careful work inside of an iPod gives its user a fresh or longer life battery. Minis are also very replaceable, but a majority of the damage a user will do to their mini is break the Click Wheel's connector on the ribbon, thus disabling the click wheel. Be sure to not be cheap when buying a new battery, some cheap new batteries can result in less battery life. 5G and nanos don't have replaceable batteries because those who have taken theirs apart reported that the battery is soldered onto the motherboard. CritCol 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, can't I just unsolder it and then resolder a new battery? Can you provide a picture or two? --Marco 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to unedit you, but the main page states that the batteries can not be changed. Now I could just go ahead and correct that nano batteries can in fact be replaced according to this site, but I thought I'd bring it up on the talk page first. As for the talk page, as long as it is about the article anything should go. As the article mentions battery replacal talking about it on the talk page should be allowed. The page in question selling a nano battery replacal kit is http://www.mp3-batterier.se/ipod_nano.htm (direkt link to nano instruction). They're a bit brief but appearently it can be done. --Marco 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can!!! I have friends who have done it but it is obviously not reccommended by Apple!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.234.161 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article origionally said that the playback for an iPod was only 8 hours when it's advertised as 14, but the article that was sighted was talking about the iPod's playback for fairplay. Not only that it was ONLY fairplay, which seems a little unfair as most people only have a handfull of songs that are fairplay. I changed it to:

'Apple states that the 60 GB and 30 GB iPods have battery lives of "up to 20 hours" and "up to 14 hours" respectively. However, this is not representative of playback using the iPod's Fairplay DRM. Playback using Fairplay only is as low as 8 hours.[10]'

But honestly, I think the comment should be deleted entirely. Problems with DRM playback harming battery preformence are not mentioned for other players' entries as "misleading advertising" so I don't see why it should be under the iPod. --arthurbarnhouse 8:31, 24th of August

The cited article is not talking about battery life with just FairPlay songs - look at the 5th paragraph. The article says that battery life is even worse if fairplay songs were the only ones used (see 8th paragraph).--IE 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "My battery isn't dying prematurely; rather, I like to have my screen on and browse photos, as well as watch an occasional video and crank the volume up.

Adding to the battery drain is my tendency to use big headphones, which draw serious juice and therefore increase noise and distortion, and the fact that I am the type of user who constantly browses and switches tracks, which basically means my hard drive is in constant motion. My music library consists of higher-bit-rate MP3s, purchased iTunes tracks, and even a few WAV and Apple Lossless tracks--all of which require more decoding/processing power than a vanilla 128Kbps MP3"

Ok, he is talking about unusual strain on the battery. Apple's advertising isn't untrue in that instance. He's talking about listening to lossless media, which of course is going to be an impossible strain on the battery life. This is not a legitimate claim of misleading advertising as apple is advertising battery life for 128 bit AAC tracks, and says so on all advertising material. -- arthurbarnhouse 17:56, 26th of August

This is standard usage, not unusual strain. Also, he says that he has a mixture of formats, and not just lossless formats. This by the way is certainly not "standard use" (here's another explanation why).--IE 20:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I fail to see how one person's problems represents "many users." That claim is going to need a seperate citation than one person writing an article. Particularly, when the writer in question recognises and admits that this is not standard use for an iPod. -- arthurbarnhouse 17:59, 26th of August

See here, here and here. Normally, citations from discussion boards aren't allowed as normal refs, but notice that no one ever says they get the advertised battery life. --IE 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Three incidential reports does not create proof. aside from that, the article you site has nothing to do with battery life advertising, only battery life with particularly large files, which the author himself says is not normal use for an iPod. HE SAYS IT, he's discussion about a number of differny formats have nothing to do with the specific thing you are pulling out of the article. No proof = no notation. --arthurbarnhouse 5:20 pm, september 10th 2006

I have looked over your most recent edit. i added a source, and removed an irrelevant statement.--HereToHelp 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A similar computer advertising strategy in 2003 resulted in the Independent Television Committee banning Apple's TV advert, due to it being too misleading.
This sentence shouldn't be removed. It's a related topic that adds insight to the article. There are lots of sentences about related topics in this article, like
The iPods with color displays adopted some Mac OS X themes
Brick was originally invented by Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak in the 1970s.
iPod users are likely to purchase other Apple products such as Mac computers.
They should all be left in. --IE 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed it again, because the article does not say what is being claimed. --arthurbarnhouse 5:09 pm, November 5th 2006


The 5g batteries are not soldered on- they are only attached with adhesives. It is only the nano that has soldered batteries.JeffStickney 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

iPod as pop culture?

Why the article not said about pop culture status of the device? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.58.88.95 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Because idiotic consumerism is nothing new. — NRen2k5 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
But why do these things pop up in other articles, take for example, Nintendo DS, it has a "DS in Popular Culture section! Isnt that idiotic consumerism?

Masterhand10 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PC's don't have firewire?

I think the statement Most PC's don't have FireWire ports so this move effectively opened the Windows market to iPod, although USB only Windows users had to keep their FireWire cables to plug into the wall adapter, needs to be changed. I can't think of a PC that doesn't have a firewire port. I think it should either read "At the time most PC's did't have..." or just be deleted all together.--Erciesielski 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right; times have changed. Fixed. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Most PCs still do not have FireWire. — NRen2k5 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? You'd be hard pressed to find a PC laptop with Firewire that that wasn't in the top 15% highest priced. Most low-mid range mainboards also come with USB only, no firewire. Firewire IS marginally faster at real data-transfer speeds, despite the slower raw transfer rate, but USB2 is still far more ubiquitous, as every Mac has USB2.0 and every PC made in the last 10 years has USB202 (or at least 1.1 for the underpriviledged). --X 0 01:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

“[…]every PC made in the last 10 years has USB202 (or at least 1.1 for the underpriviledged).” More like every PC made in the last six years. — NRen2k5 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apple

I dont know about you but In the atlantic provinces in Canada before the ipod, Apple was pretty much in the shitter. I mean schools couldnt run apple computers, the only apple thing you saw was some laptops on collage campuses. But since apples are everywhere. should it be mentioned how the ipod might have revitlized Apple? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

no Nicoli nicolivich 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The iPod did actually help Apple a lot in terms of revenue and popularity, you could add something if you wanted. — Wackymacs 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I also live in the Atlantic provinces, and my elementary school used to have G1 iMacs in the computer lab. I guess it just depends on the area you live in - like everywhere else. Seasonsinthesky 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Popularity of iTunes store

The following text, referring to the iTunes store, currently appears in the article:

"iPods are the only portable music players that can play the purchased music, and this exclusivity has helped the store become the dominant online music service."

The argument is a logical fallacy. The opposite could follow (ie that people buy iPods because they're the only thing that will play music from the dominant online store), but the reverse is not true. I don't know enough about the iTunes store to make a sensible correction. Anybody care to try? Arcman 07:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that because so many people have iPods (a full 76% of the MP3 player market), when users seek to purchase online music, they will naturally gravitate to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS), since it's built into the audio program and works perfectly fine with iPods. Hope that clears up the matter. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No. User:Arcman is right and has spotted an error. It's basically an assumption that iPod sales = music sales. There could be a number of reasons for itunes music store success (cheapness, ease of use, CD sales decline, etc). No one has any strong evidence to say what it is (see slippery slope or logical fallacy for a better explanation). Now fixed. --IE 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only guess that some among you are Apple apologists. I'll set the record straight. It's VERY simple to understand - iPod constitutes the majority of the MP3 player market - see the 76% figure mentioned above. Apple refuses to make the iPod support the standard market music format (Microsoft WMA), supporting Apple M4A instead. Likewise, Apple uses their closed M4P format - which they refuse to license to manufacturers of other MP3 players - for iTunes Music Store. What you have is a LOCK-IN: the only purchased-online music that an iPod can play is that of iTunes, and the only music iTunes sells is that which plays on an iPod. This obviously discourages other customers from buying from other brands. A fair analogy to the iPod would be if Apple made a car that only ran on special Apple fuel and made the fuel so that it would only fuel Apple cars. Some people are outright calling it an unfair market practice, which may be true, and I think it will only be a matter of time until someone brings the matter before the courts. In any case, there's simply no denying that there is a lock-in and that it is favourable to Apple's market position. — NRen2k5 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Apple refuses to make the iPod support the standard market music format (Microsoft WMA)". How is WMA the standard? And why should Apple comply with a product of MS? If M4P is used more, due to iTMS's popularity, MS should bite it, not Apple. Funny you critizice M4P for being "closed". I didn't know WMA was any more "open". Want my opinion? Stuff WMA and stuff M4P. Oh, and stuff MP3. Ogg Vorbis should be the standard, because Ogg Vorbis, unlike the other three, is open. Isilanes 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"How is WMA the standard?" WMA is the standard because it's what all the major players (aside from iTunes) use. "And why should Apple comply with a product of MS?" Well, they support MP3, which is a Thomson/Fraunhofer IIS product. "If M4P is used more, due to iTMS's popularity, MS should bite it, not Apple." Not if it's deemed to be an unfair advantage. "Funny you critizice M4P for being "closed". I didn't know WMA was any more "open"." You're right. I think Microsoft has a tool they license to companies to allow them to create and sell protected WMA files, but I don't know - so in all fairness I'll have to agree that WMA is no more open than FairPlay. "Stuff WMA and stuff M4P. Oh, and stuff MP3. Ogg Vorbis should be the standard, because Ogg Vorbis, unlike the other three, is open." I agree with you in principle, but since MP3 player manufacturers are being so slow in adopting Ogg Vorbis support, and MP3 is so well supported, I would have to recommend MP3 as a DRM-free alternative instead. — NRen2k5 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that NRen2k5s point is extremely valid. Apple have abused their dominant market position to force their users, if they want to use legal music, to only use the iTunes store. If users want to shop around for a better deal they can't because Apple has refused to licence their DRM technology to other music stores. Similarly if anybody wants to buy a cheaper and better brand of MP3 player then they cannot use iTunes. This is anti-competative practice which at the very least should be discussed in the 'criticisms' section. 90.194.133.191 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary allows lowercase titles and Wikipedia doesn't

Why is it that Wiktionary allows lowercases titles and Wikipedia still doesn't. Is there a reason that Wikipedia is technologically farther behind than Wiktionary, despite being older? Voortle 01:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Wiktionary is dictionary, but Wikipedia is not dictionary, per WP:What Wikipedia is not. I would suggest you to read WP:What Wikipedia is not. Best regards. Daniel's page ☎ 03:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reason for Wiktionary to allow lowercase titles and Wikipedia not to allow lowercase titles.
I Agree, Daniel either completely missed the point of Voortles question or simply wanted to jump at the chance of answering a question with a WP link. In either case it was of no help at all. I'll take a stab though. I'd say that there is technical problems with the way / pages work on wikipedia, in that the way things are currently run that it isn't possible to put a lower case after a slash. The answer to the problem is probably very clear to the people that actually run wikipedia, only they can't afford to spend so much of the wikipedia budget on fixing this problem. Maybe if they add a Pepsi logo to that wikipedia puzzle globe they could afford to fix the problem, linking servers or god knows how these things work. Actually, I can see an empty spot on the puzzle globe where a Pepsi logo would fit. JayKeaton 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
With a little research, you guys would have found this: Link on WP for script: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Edit Top 70.111.218.254 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The {{lowercase|propertitle}} template now converts the titles to look correctly without a need to change or do anything else. all previous articles marked as such will automatically look different. --70.111.218.254 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL IPOD

I noticed that the photo of the ipod is of a german ipod. I believe that it should be replaced by an English/ American ipod picture, as this is a English article. bobsmith319.

go take a photo of an enlish ipod and post it then Nicoli nicolivich 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
no, leave it, anyway, it looks cool. who's gonna notice? -- 156.3.163.99 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we should add a section on international iPod models. We are an English language encyclopedia for everything, English or not. -- Zanimum 16:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OhMiBod

What evidence is there that this product fits the criteria for the table it is listed in? (which is, after all, Popular iPod accessories) -- Steven Fisher 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

New iPod

Has anyone seen the new iPod? Its completly different to the 5th gen and has some cool new features like a 3.5inch touch screen and better battery life. This is not my website but i found more information on a site called 'iTunesTracks' in their blog? -Unknown

That's fake dude. TomS64 12.:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what professionals call an unsubstantiated rumour. In other words, bull@#$%. — NRen2k5 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Y' know, someone should add a section based on the "Apple Rejecting Engraving Choices" story at the following site: http://www.itunestracks.co.uk/Blog/ either on the ipod article or on the apple store article. thanks. 156.3.163.99 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "ipod" as a word

How did the word "ipod" get coined? Does it represent an initializm? e.g. "Internet personal ??? device" -Unknown

Its a small item, like a pod, that holds all your music (like peas). The "i" comes from Apple's tendancy to name things "iStuff" like the iMac, which came out before the iPod. I always thought the "pod" thing was pretty evident, like spaceship pod, or a pea pod.. Evokes the image of something small that you can carry with you and hold all your precious music. --X 0 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Only Apple's marketing department knows, and they aren't telling. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

iPod was a term Apple already had trademarked for internet kiosks and then ended up using for the mp3 player. Ill try to find the origin story link.--Thomas Exciting 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it: here. Ill edit it.--Thomas Exciting 06:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

6G iPod speculation

Is there room for a small section about 6G speculation? I mean there are a lot of magazines and websites out there making guesses as to what is coming up next, so surely there is a chance that speculation on the upcoming product known as the 6G iPod relates somewhat to an article about iPods. I’ve read a lot, about it being just a big widescreen with the “touch pad” being incorporated into the middle of the screen in a touch screen. Like a “virtual iPod” if you will. Even read that it wont include wifi, but some kind of blue tooth. Might be interesting anyway, I know I certainly would want to be aware that there is a lot of interest in the 6G iPod when reading about the iPod JayKeaton 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. There is not room for a small section about 6G speculation. If there are specific articals which provide interesting speculation then i have no problem with them being added to further reading or external links, but wikipedia is not a cristall ball Nicoli nicolivich 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Crystal ball, there might be a difference between a psycic answering questions and informed industry people talking about the new iPod, but hey, I'm not really that bothered. Just thought I would check the iPod page after skimming through cnets article on the 6G JayKeaton 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: The link in Nicoli nicolivich's comment, wikipedia is not a cristall ball should be: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nihiltres 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

iPhone

Rumours of an ipod + phone have been circulating. Could someone add some about it on the page? (see http://news.q4music.com/2006/12/iphone_set_for_release.html for more info) Tuck99 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Virus

It seems that there's a virus in the ipods. [3] where should this infomation be put? dposse 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To get started, I've put this under a new Security issues subsection under Software. --Amit 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Security issues" section

Should we have a whole section devoted to the recent virus thing? Opinions. AlistairMcMillan 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a better way to assimilate the info, but if you do, you're free to put it all in a better place rather than deleting it altogether. By the way, I had renamed the section in the article to "Security issues". I do think it is a security risk, because iPods often find their way into other PCs too, especially when they are old and resold or given away, and unclean ones can pose a risk. It's not like it's easy to clean the virus. One has to follow some very specific instructions from Apple. I will put this back now, since you're the only user opposing the section. You can improve upon it if you want, or wait until consensus decides to not have it at all. --Amit 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hearing Loss caused by iPods

This part needs to be removed because 1.this applies to all the portable audio devices, 2. the EU iPods have a volume limit, 3. 100dB is not harmful to human ear (loss of hearing starts from 110-120dB if I'm not wrong) (User:Ngapleaz). 4: It can be controlled by the user. --IE 17:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

3 is wrong and 4 is irrelevant. The exposure limit for 100 dB could be as low as 2 hours per day, using the 5 dB doubling rule. Many users, including myself and say 20% of the people in my office, would use their iPods for more than this on average. Since the user has no direct feedback as to how much damage he is causing, then the fact they can control it is no real solution. Greglocock 12:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of opinion, it's been reported by outside sources and should be mentioned. [4]
In my opinion it is important, though something needs to be changed. The Volume Limit of (i think) 100dB is not only in France, it is also in other European countries (Germany for example). Also there is a sticker on the side of the iPod saying: "Long time listening to this device can cause hearing loss" (or something similar). Secondly we should add how a Volume Limit can be put in (even with a password) on the new 5th generation. I'm going to research this a little more before editing (Me-pawel 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

Yesterday I added a section to the "criticisms" chapter about possible hearing loss from using the iPod excessively. There have been a number of articles in the media about this, so I cited two of them. It's an entirely new section, though, so I'd appreciate some oversight and review.SparhawkWiki 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I copyedited for minor grammar flaws, and killed the third paragraph. Wikipedia does not give advice.--HereToHelp 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it because it had a few problems. First, it starts with "Critics have..." which are weasel words and best avoided. Second, it said that "users often listen to the iPod for long periods of time". This is just speculation and would need some sort of citation to a survey to qualify this. Also it can't be classed as a major criticism since it applies to all music players, CD players etc. It does have a few valid points, but the article is too long, so it has to go. --IE 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If the article it too long, a section or two could be split into another article. Useful info shouldn't be lost from Wikipedia altogether due to the length of an article. This is not a paper encyclopedia. --Amit 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the "hearing loss" section after the second time user IE deleted it. IE appears to be the only person who thinks this should be deleted. IE, your criticisms of it may or may not be valid, but in my opinion they justify an edit, not wholesale deletion of the hearing loss section. I am formally asking this. Discussion page readers, please weigh in on whether to delete that section or not. I obviously vote no. SparhawkWiki 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (signed after the fact, forgot to sign initially)

  • I also vote no - the section should stay. However, perhaps it should be edited so that it is made clear that MP3 players in general, rather than just iPods, are listened to for extended periods, and therefore are just as likely as the iPod to cause hearing loss. Tom H 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It should stay, probably with editing. --Amit 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Stay. Regardless of editors' opinions on the subject, it's been made a big deal of by the press so has to be mentioned. Sockatume 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If the criticism of potential hearing loss is in the iPod article, shouldn't it be in every article about a personal music player with headphones (Walkman, Zune, etc.)? Most of the news reports about potential hearing loss extend the warning to ALL music players, primarily citing the iPod because it has a dominating marketshare and having "iPod" in the title makes a better headline. [5] [6] [7] If the hearing loss issue is important enough for the iPod article, and it applies equally to all personal music players, then logically it's important enough for those articles as well. BJ Nemeth 06:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be moved to the article digital audio player. --IE 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Have general comments here and on the Walkman page about their respective media circuses, and have the actual discussion of hearing loss on a general page about portable audio devices if possible (not just digital, otherwise we'll need another page for the good old casette Walkman) Sockatume 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This hearing loss section has got to go. If you look at the refs, none of the complainers have actually suffered hearing loss by using their iPods. They're just saying that it could happen. The first ref isn't even about iPods - it's about MP3 players, and the iPod packaging includes a disclaimer saying that people shouldn't listen to them loud... Also, this hearing loss debate is like 30 years old - ever since the 1st headphones were available. All of a sudden , the press are reporting it now. Unless someone provides a reference saying that someone has actually suffered hearing loss caused by an iPod with all the evidence, then I'm gonna remove that section soon.-IE 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rumour control: touchscreen iPods

I've trimmed that interesting little section down to the bare bones of the rumour and the quote which it's based on. Whether that section stays or goes at the moment is up to the other editors (it's a very early rumour) but I thought I'd leave it up until we got a proper look at it. Eyes peeled for commentary from the press and Apple, folks. I've got a feeling it's simply referring to iPods with non-mechanical wheels ("starting with the touchscreen models" jars with "all iPods with displays"; "starting with touchwheel models" doesn't). Sockatume 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. It's a typo. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It was a typo that has been corrected in the PDF on Apple's web site. So the "source" cited doesn't even include the quote used in the Wikipedia article. This is a flash-in-the-pan rumor, and definitely does NOT belong in an encyclopedia entry, in any context. BJ Nemeth 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Here are some links from Apple rumor sites that consider it a typo. Keep in mind these are the same sites that are ready to jump on ANY potential rumor and run with it for weeks. So if THEY call it a typo, that's conclusive enough for me. [8] [9] [10] Thanks. BJ Nemeth 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Banning anonymous edits

Despite daily vandalism by anonymous users, I don't understand why edits by them are not banned for this article. --Amit 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could always put up a request to have it semi-protected at WP:RFPP. I don't think it really needs it, though; it gets a lot less vandalism than a lot of other articles on my watchlist, and it's usually reverted before I see it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Durability and use risks

Can we add a section for how easy it is to accidentally leave something so small in one's pants, and how Apple hasn't made it waterproof? My little brother just lost his for a second time, and now there's hell. After reading about Apple's policy regarding iPod's batteries, I can't help but wonder if they purposefully plan on customers destroying these every few months or so so they'll need to buy a new one. Tyciol 12:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with this.... I mean would it make sense for us to force a paragraph into the Nokia entry complaining about how easy it is to leave their cellphones in your pants and drop it into the washing machine? Vitamin77 05:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is: NO --rogerd 12:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, shame on Apple, they should make their players big, clunky, and ugly like everyone else! --Rehcsif 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
this isnt really something for wikipedia to have... anymore. It already has enough criticism. and about big clunkey ipods? I like the the way they are. there isnt much chance of leaving it in your pocket and breaking it in the washer. theres more chance of that in a 1g ipod shuffle or a USB flash drive. --masterhand10 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment under 'sales'

I deleted the 'sales' section because it consisted of a single sentence: "Since October 2004, the iPod has ruled the world, bringing Apple to a glorious upbringing. The PS3 will not sell well." Which was clearly neither factual nor sensible (nor impartial). Perhaps someone could rewrite a 'sales' section which gave some evidence for the iPod's undoubted success.

That would be called vandalism, which I hadn't gotten around to reverting yet. I'll make sure there wasn't good content lost in the process.--HereToHelp 02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ipod hacks

There are many people who "hack" their Ipod so they can do more with it. As it voids warranty, it is at their own risk, but the hacks allow for example the Ipoid to hold a new harddisk of 300gb, witch is very tempting.

Please insert this into the Ipod article too. Cheers, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.246.151.158 (talk • contribs).

Those unfortunately, are not material fit for an encyclopedia. If were to fit every single possible thing that could be done on an iPod and put into the main article, the result would be very, very, bad. Sorry. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel that there should be mention of the RockBox project, anyway. — NRen2k5 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What, you mean like the mention under IPod#Open-source_alternatives? - Pronoiac 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, Equalizer

My small edit in the Equalizer section has already been lost twice, due to vandalism and the subsequent revert to an older edit.

The original paragraph reads:

The equalizer amplifies the digital audio level beyond the software's limit, causing distortion (clipping) on songs that have a bass drum or use a bassy instrument, even when the amplifier level is low. Notable song examples include Bob Sinclar's Love Generation[1] and Jem's Wish I.[2] One possible workaround is to reduce the volume level of the recorded MP3 by modifying each audio file. However, this cannot be done with DRM-encrypted music, and different tools are needed for each different file format.

I added, after the last sentence (without a line break):

A simpler workaround is selecting the Treble Reducer EQ preset and raising the volume, taking :advantage of the iPod's notably loud maximum audio level.

Now, can someone explain to me why that is removed, yet the ridiculous "workaround" of "reducing the volume level of the recorded MP3 by modifying each audio file." that "cannot be done with DRM-encrypted music" and "requires different tools for each file format" is OK? The workaround I posted requires just changing the EQ setting in the iPod (a couple of clicks with the center button) and raising the volume (just a little scroll of the wheel).

Please explain. Thanks.

PowerMacX 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says that some EQ settings cause bass distortion. So simply listing other EQs as alternatives doesn't add any info to the article. It's a bit like saying "Some EQs cause bass distortion, but this can be avoided by not using the EQ..." Also, using the Treble Reducer setting will reduce the treble and this may not be the intended result for the user, if the user wants to increase the bass.
Also, the workaround recommendations come from the cited sources, and they are true. MP3Gain only works on MP3s and AACGain works with AAC files. Other programs are needed for AIFF files and so on.
By the way, removing the additions that you made is not considered vandalism.--IE 09:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, finally an answer! :) Well, I agree partly with what you said, but:
The objective is to use a preset with a given name or increasing the bass response? Is the name of the preset or achieving the desired effect what matters? Since the solution listed is considered a "workaround", I'd say that selecting a different "preset X" and raising the volume to achieve a similar effect (raising the relative bass volume) than choosing "preset Y" is by all means a valid "workaround".
In any case, "the workaround recommendations come from the cited sources, and they are true" - I never said they weren´t true, just that they were not practical nor could be reasonable to expect that people would take the trouble of modifying every single file when simpler options exist.
"By the way, removing the additions that you made is not considered vandalism." Sorry if that's what it sounded like, I didn't say removing my edit was vandalism, but rather that vandalism done after it, in completely different sections, was reverted several times to points previous to my own edit, therefore removing it. --PowerMacX 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word 'advert'

This may be needlessly trivial, and if so, I apologize. But the word 'advert' is never used at all in America, and I think it would be confusing to American readers, and potentially readers in other countries. I suggest that the word 'advertisement' be used, since it's a more internationally accepted word, and plays fine on both sides of the Atlantic. Thoughts? SlapAyoda 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --Steven Fisher 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor quality edits

I think the following edits are not very good and should be reverted:

User Interface > "All iPods (except Shuffles) also have a circular input device, though the nature of which varies with how recent the model is. All scroll through lists, with clockwise denoting downward movement and counterclockwise signaling upward movement. On the first generation, there was a "Scroll Wheel" that physically turned, with the buttons clustered around it. The second generation replaced it with a "Touch Wheel" that reacts to human body heat. On the fourth generation, and all minis and nanos, the buttons are combined into a "Click Wheel". The wheel is still used for scrolling, and buttons, which must be physically pressed, control playback."

This has poor wording, over-complicates the issue and is technically wrong. Trackpads use capacitance not "body heat" to sense motion (see the Touchpad article). This paragraph also duplicates stuff that's already in the section "iPod models".
Also, the discussion about the scroll wheel and touch wheel are just hardware changes. The actual UI and the way people use it hasn't changed from the 1st generation. I've copy edited parts of it. Perhaps some of it can go in the iPod models section which summarises some of the hardware changes.--IE 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

iPod models table > iPod mini > Changes introduced > "Click Wheel"

The column title on the table says "Changes introduced", so there's no need to say that the 1st gen iPod mini had a clickwheel, since this isn't a change from a previous generation.

Sales > "2006 Q4 (preliminary), 8,729,000, ... "

Adding projected sales is a bad idea, especially when it's mixed in with actual sales - it also makes the article confusing. Wikipedia is supposed to report facts. When the official sales figures are announced they can be added.

--IE 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable to me. Isilanes 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To me too. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shinobu 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - it's always good to simplify things a bit, and make things less confusing =) –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I might be wrong about the forecast sales stuff. I think they are called preliminary results because of Apple's problems with dodgy stock options. Maybe it's OK to state the iPod sales figures cos this probably wont be affected by the stock investigation, or whatever it is.--IE 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Enjoyment of Apple iPods

do you enjoy the offers and services of the iPod by apple computers? What do you feel is lacking in their recent creations?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.201.236.124 (talk • contribs).

204.201.236.124, while I generally enjoy Apple products, Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss that. Please:
  1. Consider getting a username
  2. Consider reading about what Wikipedia is not.
Thanks, Nihiltres 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a place for surveys, unless the surveys have to do with editing Wikipedia itself. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Says who? Source please!--HereToHelp 12:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, the big sign up there saying "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia" and not "Wikipedia: The Public Discussion Forum You Can Do What You Like With"? Sockatume 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe HereToHelp could use some reading of the aforementioned what Wikipedia is not, specifically that Wikipedia is not a place for original thought, or soapbox. Isilanes 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the survey, I don't actually have a source per se - it's just experience from being here for some time, and from other random surveys that were posted on the Help Desk. In this case, it seems like it's from a commercial competitor/interest in Apple trying to do a survey/poll not related to Wikipedia - What do you feel is lacking??? Surveys are fine generally, but I feel that in this case, it's almost like spam. I apologize for any confusion, HereToHelp. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 20:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It does say here that for, Discussion forums, Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. Random, harmless surveys are fun and I enjoy participating in them, but this is almost spam. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot remember why I posted that. I certainly know that Wikipedia is not for that sort of thing. Too much Wikistress, I guess...--HereToHelp 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
HereToHelp sometimes has Terminal Sarcasm Syndrome, I suspect. :D --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

iPod use on both a PC and a Mac -- Is it possible?

I own a PC and a Mac and would like to conect my iPod to both. I'm not sure if its possible and am afraid to just hook it up.

Mullman22170 22:40 29 Nov 2006

Wikipedia really isn't the place for that...but I think you have to commit to one format or the other. I could be wrong, though.--HereToHelp 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite this not being the place to ask, what I've heard is that the iPod is initially formatted with one of two formats based on whether it is connected to a Mac or a PC. It can then be used only (?) by one of the two OSes, although some functions are supported either way (external hard drive use?). You're looking at a format issue - the drive will format as either HFS+ or FAT32, I think. Check the article, and remember that HFS+ is the generic Mac format, FAT32 the generic PC format. Nihiltres 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
in terms of using it as an external hardrive, my friends mac can acess my windows formated ipod(4th gen) but my pc cannot acces his mac formated ipod Nicoli nicolivich 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Uhh, id like to interject, as long as you dont set your ipod to update with the entrire library, yes, you can use both a pc and a mac w/ your ipod. 156.3.163.99 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

... as long as it's PC/Windows formated. masterhand10

Nifty Infobox at Top

The Zune page has a nifty infobox at the top that, IMHO, makes the article more professional looking and visually appealing. I understand that there are many types of iPods so an exact replica of the "Portable Music Player" infobox would not work, but maybe could we have a simpler one to give a *very* brief overview to anyone wanting to compare the iPod line to, say, the Zune or other workalikes? - JustinWick 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea, but the only iPod the Zune attempts to compete with is the full-sized iPod, which is not the best selling iPod - the nano and the shuffle both sell more. If an infobox attempted to include all three major models, it'd be pretty large. One way around this is to use a simpler infobox, design a picture showing all three models, and then putting some basic information about each model in that infobox. It's feasible - what are your thoughts? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we'd need a custom infobox for this article. We have a number of different iPods, of which each class of iPod is of one of several different generations. Since I can imagine such an infobox as very big, we'd probably break additional sections up into smaller boxes which could be included in appropriate sections. I have to say, though, that I think this article is somewhat ambiguous - "iPod" has two meanings: there is the iPod brand, and the iPod player (the original design now in its fifth generation, not any of the variant iPods). We should probably split the article - the other iPod articles (iPod nano, iPod shuffle, iPod mini,) already have Portable Music Player infoboxes. Nihiltres 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So there would be two different articles? One on the iPod brand as a whole (which could include the iPod Hi-fi as well) and one on the specific model of iPod (5.5G) currently? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

iPod as a Generic Name for any MP3 Player

I didn't see a mention in the article that "iPod" is now often used by an extremely large number of people as a synonym for "any MP3 Player, regardless of actual manufacturer"- did I miss something, or was this deliberately left out for other reasons? --Commander Zulu 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source for this? If so, feel free to add it with a reference. —Trevyn 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Only my own experience in electronics retail, but nothing in print or online that I can link to- yet. --Commander Zulu 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What's correct here?

This article says that "Unlike UMS/MTP-capable digital audio players, simply copying files to the drive will not allow the iPod to properly access them", implying that the iPod is not a UMS device. However, the UMS device article lists the iPod as one. Which is correct? Ken Arromdee 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's complicated. You can partition part of the iPod's hard drive as a UMS device for storing data, but you can't put your music in there (well, you can, but the iPod won't be able to see it). Sockatume 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected request: environmental issues

um i wanna add this to the artical, its from the apple computers artical, i added a link at the end. pleaseeeeeeeeee add it, ppl should be informed. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.2.50 (talk • contribs).

Environmental Issues

Apple's hardware has come under fire by Greenpeace since 2004 for not setting a timeline to remove PVC, which still exists in recent products such as the iPod nano and MacBook; and for not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan for Apple hardware (although it does within Europe and Japan where it is required by law); as well as for not having reusable components.[24] Greenpeace lists toxic substances used in Apple products in their Apple parodying ad, including: cadmium, beryllium, lead, brominated flame retardants, hexavalent chromium, mercury.[25] Apple's own web site lists most of these compounds as "restricted substances" and has further information.[26]Apple also claims its recycling programs have processed more than 21 million pounds (9500 tonnes) of electronic equipment since 1994.[27] http://www.greenpeace.org/apple

Comment: This request needs to provide references for all the [numbers]. Also, the statement "Apple's own web site lists most of these compounds as "restricted substances" and has further information." seems like it needs clarification of and has further information. Once this is properly referenced from both Apple's and Greenpeace's viewpoints, it can be added. —Doug Bell talk 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected: I've unprotected the article, so you are free to add the change yourself. Please try to include the references I mention above. —Doug Bell talk 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the paragraph from Apple Computer. It does contain references, but it seems a little misleading. When Apple lists them as "restricted substances", what it means is that Apple is trying to minimize their use, not that the substances are illegal. Moreover, while Greenpeace criticizes Apple for using those substances, it omits necessary details, like saying "other companies have set a date to remove..." without naming the other companies.

Greenpeace also quotes Steve Jobs out of context (helpfully providing a link to the out of context quote!):

Greenpeace: "Steve Jobs publicly called environmentalists' concerns about Apple "bullshit"."

Context: "To say we're insensitive or irresponsible is just bullshit."

Notice that the Greenpeace quote claims that Job is denying "concerns" while Jobs is actually denying that Apple is irresponsible, which isn't the same thing.

I question using the Greenpeace reference at all, either here or in the Apple article. They aren't exactly an unbiased source. If you must use them, it should at least be qualified--"Greenpeace compares Apple to unspecified 'other companies'". Ken Arromdee 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What About iPodWizard?

Someone should add a section about iPodWizard... SEROUIOUSLY!

I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE MENTION OF iPODWIZARD IN THIS ARTICLE OR ALL REALATED ARTICLES!!!

(well, exept for the wiki page on http://www.ipodwizard.com) 156.3.163.99 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wiki, so you can add it yourself. SEROUIOUSLY! —Doug Bell talk 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Erm... I'm not sure if this corporation is noteworthy enough to have material included in the article... The website is purely commercial. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes well, it's a Wiki, so if it needs to be removed, you can remove it. SEROUIOUSLY! —Doug Bell talk 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Since this is a Wiki, do you think we can link to Wikitionary where they have a more SERIUOUS spelling of seriously? :p --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know I can remove it, :) but still, it's best not to even have it on at all. Plus the IP has been cited for vandalizing. Seriously. ;) –- kungming·2 (Talk) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
SOmeone should at least link the iPodwizard article to the main ipod article -- Masterhand10 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this been reviewed for GA?

This talk page claims it's a good article and it's listed on Wikipedia:Good Articles but I don't see any record that it was actually reviewed. If not, it requires a good article review to get on the list. Twinxor t 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this is very odd. I looked to find any Wikipedia "meta" namespace articles linking to IPod (presumably a Good Article Review would be in there) but I didn't find any trace of it. There was a peer review and a failed Featured Article candidacy, but no mention of a "good article review." As an experiment, I looked at the "good article" Tagoi language's backlinks, and it does not seem to have been reviewed either. I wonder how many "good articles" were never reviewed... someone should form a committee and see that the good name of Good Articles is not sullied in this fashion! Or perhaps I am missing something? - JustinWick 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, after some sleuthing, I found that this edit, by Link_the_windwaker was when the GA tag was added. - JustinWick 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable! We've been deceived for the last 11 months :-). I've removed the Good Article tag... This article needs a peer review or Good Article review anyway, since the content has changed a lot. Well done for spotting that! --IE 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I added a message about this to Template:GA. Hopefully that will make it less of a problem. Twinxor t 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Move Criticism to its own article?

The Criticism section is rather large. I'm thinking maybe we should move it to its own article. Shall we put it to a vote? — NRen2k5 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia guideline about this? A lot of people just go back and merge things like this anyways, would be good to have solid evidence that it is, indeed, "too long." Personally I think that'd be fine, but better find out before we vote. - JustinWick 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about a guideline, but the criticism section needs to be shortened, in my opinion. The criticism section is very large, and I think that just having the section there, bloated as it is, invites NPOV - not to mention that we don't have a corresponding "praise" section. Nihiltres 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

A Good Article review has opened concerning this article and its possibly problematic passage over a year ago. Anyone is free to comment :/. Homestarmy 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Care to link to the actual review? - JustinWick 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Review#iPod. Twinxor t 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/p/o/Talk%7EIPod_Archive4_be39.html"