Talk:IPhone/Archive 8

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

Planning on placing better iPhone pics to show home screen, placed as fair use, any objection?

Okay, I AM GETTING SICK OF SEEING AN OUTDATED iPhone image at the front of the page...

I am considering replacing the image of the iPhone with the better updated iPhone image with home screen...

I already gotten Apple's permission to use the image, since the home screen is considered a screen shot, and the purpose of the image is to educate the home screen and the look of the iPhone...

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoman (talk • contribs) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And you DO have physical proof, right? We can't just take your word for it. Provide some sort of proof, such as:
  • Scanned letter if in hardcopy.
  • URL to an OFFICIAL Apple Inc. web page stating that Wikipedia is allowed to use their photos.
Just your word alone isn't enough. Groink (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is a photo we take ourselves of our own iPhone home screen not acceptable? -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why isn't there a criticism section? And don't tell me that it's because the iPhone is perfect... -Mbatman 72 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you check the archives, you would discover it is either because the iPhone is in fact perfect or may because that would be against WP:criticism. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of care has been taken to integrate the flaws and criticisms of the iPhone with the main body of the article, so if there are legitimate criticisms they are in this article, just not singled out and lumped together. If there is a flaw/criticism/whatever of the device that is notable, can be referenced, and is not included in this article then feel free to add that info in the proper spot (for example, if CNN runs a big story on how much the touchscreen sucks then that can be added to the part of the article talking about the touchscreen), or alternatively add that info to the talk page here and someone should integrate that info for you. -- Atamachat 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the proper method of criticising on Wikipedia is to incorporate the criticism - with references - into the existing sections. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to create a separate criticism section and have the criticisms lumped together. If that's what you're looking for, you're using the wrong resource, and you should therefore consult Consumer Reports whose major job is to review products. Groink (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect info under "Software updates"

Just a little misplacement of a feature under 1.1.4:

"Added the ability to view song lyrics, if programmed with iTunes" should be moved to 1.1.3

in 1.1.3 you can also view subtitles, along with chapters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsg09 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlocking

All versions of iPhone are unlockable and jailbreakable, using ZiPhone www.ziphone.org someone write something about that :) - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already an unlocking section of the article, but no, we're not going to advertise Ziphone. This is an encyclopedia. -- Atamachat 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

iPhone SDK coverage

Delicious live coverage of the SDK announcement: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/06/live-from-apples-iphone-press-conference/

-- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Exchange?

Ok ,someone needs to fix that. The iPhone does not run Microsoft Exchange. In fact, it doesn't carry anything that has to do with Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.255.165 (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Read it again. Read it twice more if you have to! The sentence in question is discussing the mail servers an iPhone can connect to. The iPhone includes IMAP, so it can indeed interface with MS Exchange Server. When making comments like this, make sure you're reading the sentence correctly. Groink (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never successfully connected to an exchange server with my iPhone (and I've tried 3 different Exchange environments). Perhaps something it needed wasn't enabled, but on all 3 servers I got a certificate error and then nothing. There are even 3rd party Exchange -> iPhone providers popping up to handle this issue. 12.216.22.87 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Apple announced exchange support for the iPhone coming in a future software update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.6.24 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Information on iPhone SDK is slightly misleading.

The iPhone SDK does not cost ANYTHING to develop for, and anybody - running Mac OS 10.5 or later - can download and install it. The $99 fee refers to anybody wanting to potentially get their apps published through iTunes as far as I can tell. I know this, because I just (legitimately) downloaded and installed the iPhone SDK after registering through Apple's website, and I didn't have to pay a dime. The ramifications of this are thus: Without paying that $99 fee, anybody can create apps and post the code online. Other iPhone users can then take that code, paste it into their SDK, compile the application, and load it onto their iPhone without anybody paying anything, or anything being shady/under the table. The information listed - that the SDK costs $99 - is patently incorrect. 69.214.1.167 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it to you this way then... You can develop software with the "beta" SDK absolutely free. But you won't be able to upload what you write to your iPhone. That's what the iPhone emulator is for. When the final SDK is released later this year, you will only be able to get it if you pay the $99 annual fee and join the Apple developers program. Unless you pay the $99, your code will not be uploaded to the App Store. THAT'S what is meant by the SDK costing $99. But if you decide to say heck with the App Store and distribute your program yourself, then the only people who will be able to enjoy it will be the jailbreakers. And you will STILL be stuck with the beta SDK (unless of course one of your friends break the agreement and give you the final SDK.) Groink (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I am not disputing what you are saying, but there is a good chance that the final SDK will also be made available for no-charge also. For Mac OS X (computer edition), free of charge, anyone can download the released Xcode as well as the SDK. What is somewhat unusual in this instance is access to the pre-release (beta) software without having to pay the developer membership fee. All speculation, of course. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm old school when it comes to Apple development. I stopped developing for Mac OS Classic just before Mac OS X 10.0 was released. Before then, the developer program was very exclusive, and Apple was very strict about their tools and what you did with them. So I still think along those lines. With that, it is possible for the final release of the SDK to be completely free. But I do still stand on the point in that the SDK is useless for the non-jailbreak community. Writing sw with no legit way of installing it on an iPhone is like learning to speak Japanese despite having no one to speak to. Groink (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, the SDK released today IS referred to within Apple Inc. as a beta version. Read the official Apple PR bulletin published earlier today at apple.com: "The iPhone SDK provides developers with a rich set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and tools to create innovative applications for iPhone and iPod® touch. Starting today, anyone can download the beta iPhone SDK for free and run the iPhone Simulator on their Mac®. Apple today also introduced its new iPhone Developer Program, giving developers everything they need to create native applications, and the new App Store, a breakthrough way for developers to wirelessly deliver their applications to iPhone and iPod touch users." Groink (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Other iPhone users can then take that code, paste it into their SDK, compile the application, and load it onto their iPhone without anybody paying anything, or anything being shady/under the table. Just to try and make it more clear: It is not possible to execute code on the devices (iPhone/iPod touch) without a valid code-signing cert that you get as part of the $99 membership. Not on your phone, not if someone copy-and-pastes the code or opens the XCode project on their computer. This also applies to remote debugging. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is waaay too long. It's almost as long as the articles for Canada, England, the United States, World War II, etc.

The iPhone does have MANY features, which is probably the reason that the page is so long. It's got a lot of good info on each feature. Ogdens (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, it shows just how otaku iPhone users are. Groink (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The newer Nokia N-series have pretty much the same features, and yet their articles don't describe all of them in long detail. (Before someone screams "but the N-Series have no touchscreen" I'll note the fact that iPhone is missing a flashlight, a replacable battery, support for Flash, a worse camera than most, FM transmitter, etc). Is, for example, the below bit in the beginning of "Features" really necessary?
"The iPhone allows conferencing, call holding, call merging, caller ID, and integration with other cellular network features and iPhone functions. For example, a playing song fades out when the user receives a call. Once the call is ended the music fades back in."
Most smartphones can do that anyway. I don't see any reason to have all of this described here, you could write it on the Smartphone article... HJV (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The point I made about iPhone otaku is that the fascination over the device resembles closely to that of Star Trek and Pokemon. He can basically take any component about the iPhone and write 20 pages about it. There's a story behind every tiny little thing. I'm surprised that Jobs didn't have all the iPhone designers sign the inside of the case. There is no mechanism in-place on Wikipedia to curb this type of fancruft. Yes, it is fancruft because over half of the this article isn't about the hardware and software, but rather it is about trivial things that seriously 98-percent of the population wouldn't even care about. But despite that 98-percent, the other 2-percent will throw out there Wikipedia guidelines that say the content does belong in the article. That's really the trouble with Wikipedia articles. If the iPhone was just an ordinary device that didn't have the hoopla, the anti-this-and-that, and the fanboys/girls associated with it, then yes the article would be of similar size to any other cellphone article. That is the problem with being an iPhone otaku. Groink (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We should just BE BOLD and fix it. I would if I knew where to start! I'm sure we can come to a consensus about what needs to be trimmed down... If 98% want it trimmed and only 2% disagree that should be enough of a consensus to get it done. -- Atamachat 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

trivia?

Is this sentence trivia?

During the product's announcement, Jobs demonstrated this feature by searching for nearby Starbucks locations and then placing a prank call to one with a single tap.[29][30]

171.71.37.203 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a GREAT example of what I'm talking about regarding the article being too long. The above is fancruft. Groink (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cisco & Apple

Maybe a mention of Cisco and Apple "exploring interoperability" with the Cisco VPN support for the iPhone. SpiderRice 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Phone ???

I just saw the term "Jesus Phone" used in an article (not on Wikipedia). Typing it into Wikipedia redirected me here, but the Wikipedia article doesn't mention the term. I think if "Jesus Phone" redirects here, then there needs to be a note in the article that this is a term used for the iPhone. Ideally there would be a reference to whoever or whatever article coined the expression 194.113.40.219 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I have removed the redirect, as unencyclopedic and trivial, however after that I discovered to my shock that Google gives a million and a half hits on this ridiculous term, so maybe I acted too hastily. But really "Jesus Phone"? What's next "God's calling device"? Discussion? Mahjongg (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, it all started with Jesus Diaz at Gizmodo – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How much "memory" does an iPhone have?

There have been people repeatedly trying to change this article to state that the iPhone has 128MB of memory. This is based on a couple of blogs that have been posted. Now, blogs are not reliable sources unless they are attached to a legitimate news service (for example a blog at the NY Times web page). Flash memory is capable of functioning as both storage and RAM, PDAs have been doing that for years now. For an iPhone, the RAM and storage are the same, just as they are for many PDAs and smartphones. If anyone disputes this find a reliable source or your edits will be reverted. -- Atamachat 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, from a hardware teardown of the iPhone (as reported in EETimes and EDN), it has, in the same package as the Samsung application processor (i.e., the processor running UN*X), 2 512Mbit SRAM dice, or some unspecified amount of either SRAM or DDR SDRAM, depending on which of those two articles you read; that'd be 128MB if it's 512 Mbit and the 512Mbit refers only to data bits or if there aren't any error-checking bits. It also has 8GB of NAND flash (4GB in the old 4GB models).
At least according to Micron's tech note on NAND flash, NAND flash page-oriented (you can read or write blocks sequentially), and can't function as normal random-access memory:
NAND Flash is a page-oriented memory device that does not inherently support XIP, at least not in the same manner as a typical XIP memory device. Operating system and boot code can be stored in NAND Flash memory, but the code must be copied (or shadowed) to DRAM before it can be executed. This requires system designers to modify the boot process for their systems when using NAND Flash. The payoff for this modification is that the system benefits from the lower cost of NAND Flash as the storage solution and the higher performance of DRAM as the XIP memory.
That means it's a bit more like a fast disk with minimal "seek penalties" (and with writes that are slower than reads and that, if done repeatedly to the same block, eventually wear out the block) than like a big chunk of non-volatile main memory. Fortunately, iPhone OS inherits a lot from an OS that runs from hard disks (and which, in turn, descends from an OS that ran from hard disks, which, in turn, descended from an even older OS that ran from hard disks, which in turn descended from an even older OS that ran from hard disks, and so on), so there's plenty of "there's main memory and there're file systems" heritage to it.
The iPhone definitely has a conventional file system, at least as of 1.1.2 - "mount" reports two file systems on /dev/disk0s1 and /dev/disk0s2, both HFS+ (and both mounted with noatime, so you don't have to write to the flash merely because you read something). I have no reason to assume those "disks" don't represent regions of the flash. Guy Harris (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Atama is correct. Actually, I don't even know why it is such a confusing issue. The field name in the infobox is "memory", which can basically mean any kind of memory: primary and secondary storage, RAM, ROM, etc. I used to get these types of answers a heck of a lot when I did tech support for a software company; I would ask the customer, "How much RAM do you have?" and they would say something like, "40GB!" I believe the 128MB came about from people who jailbroke the iPhone, then ran sysctl() to get the total RAM. By design of that function, it returns the total RAM that the OS recognizes. So the 128MB is what's being reported by iPhone OS (is that what we're calling it now?!?!?) In other words, iPhone OS makes a distinction between "real" RAM and primary storage (i.e. the 8 or 16GB). Looking at the take-apart photos on the various web sites, there are 512Mbit SDRAM modules in the iPhone. In all, it is a matter of how one would define "memory" when looking at the field in the infobox. Does it mean the grand total of ALL the memories in the iPhone? Is it the primary storage memory? Is it the RAM memory? Groink (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Apple Inc. appear to be calling it "iPhone OS" in at least some pages (such as the WWDC08 top-level page and at least one place on the press release for the beta release of the "iPhone(TM) 2.0 software", so it might make sense for Wikipedia to call it that as well.
And, yes, the OS makes a distinction between the RAM that it treats as main memory and the apparently-not-as-randomly-accessible NAND flash that it treats as a funny kind of disk, for the reasons described in my earlier comment. Guy Harris (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Template:Infobox Mobile phone has two fields - "memory" and "storage". Unfortunately, the documentation for the template does not at all explain what the difference between them is, and, in the example they give, use "memory" for what I presume, given the size and the reference to it being available to the "user", is persistent storage rather than a form of "main memory" that gets, for example, tossed out on a reboot. Guy Harris (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, I just recently added that storage field...to accommodate this article. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a rather vitriolic comment telling Atama to find a source that says it does use its flash as system memory. I found a report on the iPhone CPU instead .

The Samsung applications processor controls the smart phone functionality and multimedia playback of the iPhone. The processor itself contains embedded DRAM. The package on package innovation contains two 512Mb Samsung DRAM dice and the S5L8900.

Two 512 Mb DRAM "dice" equals 128 MB of RAM. It seems they want paying for the actual report, but I think the "device description" is enough. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the 128MB RAM finding, I think for the common man, he could give a rip about the 128MB. He's only concerned about how many songs the iPhone can hold, and that is measured by the primary storage. If the iPhone was a computer (I won't go into a dispute over that), then sure RAM would be of interest. But the iPhone is an appliance. Apple markets the phone as such (which is why Apple never mentioned RAM.) And for the majority of consumers, storage capacity is the key element. Therefore, I would define "memory" as primary storage memory. Groink (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, looks like someone changed the flash storage from "memory" to "storage". In that case, might as well re-add memory and make that 128MB. Groink (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the OS been renamed "iPhone OS"

The Apple iPhone developers page refers to the OS as "iPhone OS". Was it always this way, or has it been newly renamed for version 2.0? I can't find a reference to "Mobile OS X" or "OS X Mobile" on Apples site so I'm inclined to fix this page, but since I don't want to start a Silly Edit War, I'll thought I'd throw it by the other editors first. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just like anything else in Wikipedia it all boils down to who has the most/best references. If Apple starts officially calling it iPhone OS then that's what it's called, however I'm not sure that then mention of the term at one web page is going to be enough, after all it could just be a description (the OS that the iPhone uses) rather than an actual name. After all the specs for the iPhone still call it OS X. -- Atamachat 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It actually wasn't the webpage that made me notice. It was today's presentation where Scott Forstall gave the differences between the OS X model and the iPhone OS model. And the words iPhone OS showed up multiple times including speaking of the new "iPhone OS API" calls. See photos and text at http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/06/live-from-apples-iphone-press-conference (I know engadget isn't a reliable source, but its good enough for a talk page.) It was the first time I heard it discussed as such. -- KelleyCook (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I was reading that earlier today (eagerly) and I hadn't noticed that phrase. That's interesting, but even still I wonder if it's really the name or a description. If it's the official name we should know soon enough, Apple will start plastering it all over everything. -- Atamachat 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be a shame for Apple to call the OS "iPhone OS". I mean, the iPod touch uses the exact same OS. Groink (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelley, I noticed that you went ahead and changed the info on the page to iPhone OS, did you find an official source for the name change or was it just based on the info you've presented so far? -- Atamachat 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, there's also, for example, [1] and [2].
You're not necessarily going to find an official "Apple gives the OS on the iPhone an official name" press release. Guy Harris (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I wasn't expecting a press release. I suppose there's no harm in changing the name, if this turns out to be incorrect we just change it back. No harm. -- Atamachat 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Apple seems to refer to it as OS X the most, and additionally the article should mention "CocoaTouch," the developer platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.249.240 (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardware

Screen resolution should be 163 ppi under the hardware section. source: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.249.240 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

free iPhone ringtones using iTunes

Use any song in your iTunes library to make a ring tone you can use on your iPhone. Found by experimentation: 1. In iTunes choose song and section of that song you want to use (up to 30 seconds).

2. Right click on song, Select "get info", Select "Options" tab. Set the start and stop times. click ok

3. Right click song again. "Choose Convert To AAC". Right click song a third time and uncheck start and stop times, click ok.

4. Find new song that you just created (usually by the 30 second length, and it usually appears under the original). Right click "Show In Windows Explorer." Change File type from .m4a to .m4r.

5. After file name change double click that file in windows, it will play in iTunes, and be in your iTunes library under a new folder called Ringtones.

6. In i Tunes click on your iPhone, Under summary make sure "Manually Manage music and videos" is UNCHECKED. In "Ringtones" tab make sure "Sync Ringtones" is CHECKED.

7. Click sync, Your new ringtone should be on your iPhone!

Available Date

Surely we should include the dates in which the iPhone became available in each country respectively in the Info Box?

(Umbongo91 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

SINGAPORE: Industry sources said Apple's iPhone will be launched in Singapore by SingTel this September, but the telco has neither confirmed nor denied this. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.4 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the infobox is being heavily abused. The iPhone's infobox is the largest infobox I've yet to see on Wikipedia. Infoboxes are supposed to be small, and somewhat vague as the reader is encouraged to read the article. I think it is being mis-used here. Rather than jamming every tidbit of info into the infobox, the info should be integrated into the body of the article. For example, the release dates for every country could be integrated into a table and placed in its own section. Groink (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

iPhone flip design

ABC News reports Apple has filed a patent for a flip iPhone.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7018869&ch=4226721&src=news

(The video is "up next")

71.11.215.216 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A much better source is at Engadget but I wouldn't bother adding it to this article. It's not noteworthy at all, just a patent filing that leads to "iPhone Flip" rumors and this article is already bloated enough. -- Atamachat 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is not an Apple officially announced design. As stated by C-Net, a patent application does not mean the idea will actually be used. Patents could be applied for the purpose of taking ownership of a concept with no intent of using it, and eventually collect on the concept - something which we've seen practiced hundreds of times in the industry. Even if the patent was actually used, it does not mean it would be used on the iPhone product. I can go on and on about this, but in short Wikipedia does not speculate future events based on assumptions. Groink (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad quality images

The images in this article are not of very good quality. I request someone to make an appeal or to himself put better quality images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.204.15 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, But, here's the problem: the pictures have gone back and forth so many times, people have pitched fits that if the screen is on that it falls under Apple's copyright, and all that, I have no desire to fight that battle anymore. I took some pictures and uploaded them, only to have them get caught up in the mire of the drama, and, well, I'll leave it to someone else now. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There have been numerous changes with pictures, but there have been 2 different objections to the images that were uploaded previously. The first controversy regarded putting "fake" pictures of the iPhone in this article; CGI-enhanced creations like you might see on Apple's web page that show the iPhone with an impossibly-bright, clear, unblemished image that no iPhone actually looks like. The second controversy is what Frijole mentioned, which was the recent decision that all iPhone/iPod pictures that show the home screen are copyright violations and can't be used in articles any longer. That led to many pictures either having the screen blurred or showing a different screen. It's a kind of a mess, but at least the images we have are accurate and uncontroversial. -- Atamachat 17:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. To add more detail, Wikimedia Commons has a policy where if an image is not free (keep in mind that "free" differs from "fair use"), we cannot use it in an English Wikipedia article IF the intent of the article is to be added to the English Wikipedia distribution CD. This iPhone article has been tagged by the project as being very important, therefore we must obey Wikimedia Commons guidelines. There are other articles on Wikipedia that do use non-free images, but I believe they can because those articles haven't been tagged by any project and therefore will not be distributed on the CD. Groink (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Intriguing, I didn't know this. Is this part of a policy anywhere? (I'm not trying to cast doubt or anything, I'm just genuinely curious about this). – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any one article that talks about this issue. I regularly read through the arguments in the talk pages anytime an article or image is tagged for removal. It is much like sitting in the courtrooms and studying the cases that pass through. The information I provided earlier is basically what I've gathered from reading into these issues. The closest thing I can find is the GFDL article, where Wikipedia is a licensee of the GFDL. The key sentence in this article:
"On December 1, 2007, Jimmy Wales announced that after long period of discussion and negotiation between and amongst the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and others has produced a proposal supported by both the FSF and Creative Commons to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to CC-BY-SA."
In preparation of getting the English Wikipedia compliant, many of the admins started pouring through the hundreds of thousands of images on the Wikimedia projects and basically started cleaning house. Everything from promo photos to photos of vinyl albums were targets. I remember that even the Mac OS X screenshots were deleted as a result of this cleansing. Eventually, much of the photos were moved over from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons (makes sense, as it allows ALL Wikipedia projects to share the same photos instead of keeping a copy on each project's servers.)
The Wikipedia selections CD release is also a GFDL licensed product, and therefore all content on the CD must be GFDL licensed. Regarding images, in order for the image to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, it must be GFDL licensed. Let's say a photo taken off apple.com is placed into the iPhone article. That photo would then need to be added to Wikimedia Commons. But, the photo is blocked from uploading because Apple Inc. didn't license any of their photos under GFDL. The key here is that GFDL is more strict than the U.S.' "fair use" policy. Most Americans will whip out that fair use policy like they had it in their back pocket. But that won't work here. Groink (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a little confusion here. Wikimedia Commons is a separate project from Wikipedia, and does not control the image use policy on Wikipedia. The Commons is a repository for freely licensed media that can be used on any Wikimedia project, and does not accept 'fair use' claims under any circumstances. The English Wikipedia, on the other hand, does accept images uploaded with claims of 'fair use', but only if they fall within the fair use policies described at WP:FU. —Jeremy (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? Wikipedia is governed by the GFDL. It is the GFDL that is more restrictive than fair use. Wikimedia Commons is the organization that provide resources for ALL the Wikipedia's (English, Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc.) We WANT the iPhone images to be stored on Wikimedia Commons!!!! Although you do see (which I said earlier) images based on fair use, it will not be allowed on the GFDL-licensed CD because it cannot be added to Wikimedia Commons. If the image fails GFDL, the entire article associated with the image fails GFDL. In short, if you want this and all other articles to fail GFDL, then go right on ahead and do what most of you have been doing. But I personally would like for this article to be distributed through other means other than the Internet (CD). Groink (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I read what you wrote. You stated: "Wikimedia Commons has a policy where if an image is not free (keep in mind that "free" differs from "fair use"), we cannot use it in an English Wikipedia article IF the intent of the article is to be added to the English Wikipedia distribution CD." I was simply pointing out that the Wikimedia Commons has no such policy. Incidentally, can you point me to where it is stated that articles containing images with valid (per WP:FU) fair use claims will not be considered for the CD. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, the thousands of images removed from Wikipedia since December 2007 under the argument of failing GFDL is an indication that fair use does NOT mean non-free. I assume that because you keep linking to with WP:FU, you believe the two are synonymous. No, the two are not. Non-free means that the owner of the image released the image under GFDL but still own the image. Fair use allows for the image to be used even if the image is owned by someone. GFDL protects the owner by limiting distribution by requiring the distribution to be licensed by GFDL. If the image passes U.S. fair use law but fails GFDL, then it is not allowed on any GFDL-licensed product. The common denominator in my argument here is GFDL. All the entities I've mentioned are tied in with GFDL: Wikimedia Commons, English Wikipedia, the Wikipedia CD Selection release. If one element of the iPhone article breaks GFDL, then it no longer qualifies to be distributed through other means via GFDL, such as the CD. Also remember that fair use is a nation-specific law. Just because the English Wikipedia server sits on U.S. soil does not mean it must obey U.S. fair use laws. In order to distribute Wikipedia content via CD, the release must be free of fair use imagery and other content. That is why Wikipedia became a licensee of GFDL, and why the editors and admins are aggressively removing images from articles that are meant to be ported over to the selections CD. Reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection/image copyrights, it states that fair use images are not included. Groink (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you read WP:FU--particularly the part that states "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. On Wikipedia the GFDL is considered a free content license as you will see from its listing at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. Regardless of that, previous versions of the CD release have included articles that have fair use images--the fair use images were simply stripped from the article for the CD. I can find nothing to suggest that the same will not happen with future CD releases. —Jeremy (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, my whole basis of this argument is that I want this iPhone article to appear with the images intact in the 2008 edition!!!!!! The only reason an image is rejected from Wikimedia Commons is that it fails the guidelines put forth by GFDL - and that's why I use Wikimedia Commons as an indicator of compliance, as it uses the same guidelines as the selections CD. And, if you sit down and read through the various articles on use of the Wikipedia logo on the selections CD, you will see that it is the Wikimedia Foundation - the folks who run Wikimedia Commons and all the Wikipedia's that allow it to be used in the 2007 edition.
Going back to the subject at hand... Let me state one more time, if anyone uploads an image to English Wikipedia that was pulled off from apple.com, it will be reverted and deleted. And that's why we're stuck with lesser quality imagery. Groink (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IPhone Princess

Is there anybody had known about iPhone Princess? Is it the most expensive iPhone? Newone (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an iPhone that someone covered in diamonds. Big deal. If you cover anything in diamonds it's going to become expensive. It's not notable and definitely doesn't belong in this article. -- Atamachat 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"No stylus can be used" ?

Certainly an ordinary plastic stylus (as used on the Palm etc) won't work. A solid metal stylus would work fine - but would scratch the glass. However, a compromise has been designed, which is metal-bodied, but has a thin layer of softer material on the tip; this keeps the capacitance relatively high, but won't scratch the screen. One such example is here: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/a31f/ RichardNeill (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that. Although they are out of stock I hope to get one when they become available. It looks like we may have to change the article. -- Atamachat 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The question is how do we indicate that only one known stylus works with the iPhone, and at the same time avoid endorsing a niche product like this? If there were several companies making iPhone styluses (or is it styli??? :P ), then it would make editing much easier. Groink (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
How's this: The iPhone is designed for human fingers, but at least one third party has developed a [[stylus]] for it.<ref>whatever</ref>--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "multi-touch"

I noticed that an editor attempted to correct the use of multi-touch by capitalizing it as "Multi-Touch". This is incorrect. Apple did register for multi-touch as a trademark in June 2007. However, as of today it has not been registered with Apple. The term is also not a proper noun. And, if you read the multi-touch Wikipedia article, it uses the form "multi-touch" (except when it is the first word in a sentence), as well as all the academic papers linked via the external link references at the bottom of the article. As long as the parent article for multi-touch uses this convention, we should not be deviating from it for the sole purpose of Apple devices. Also, other forms such as "multitouch" or "MultiTouch" are also not correct when used here. Groink (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, just because the Apple web site uses the convention "Multi-Touch", that does not mean Wikipedia must do so as well. Again, the trademark guideline does not apply here because Apple does not own the trademark to the term. Even the party who currently owns the trademark does not use the "Multi-Touch" form. Groink (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This link proves that Apple does not own the trademark. It is owned by DPI Labs, Inc. Groink (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This set of documents show the trail leading up to, as of this writing, the trademark not being registered with Apple.

A letter of protest was sent to the Commissioner of Trademarks on January 17, 2008. The letter was filed on April 1, 2008. In the memorandum, "The term 'multi-touch' is descriptive, if not generic, for electronic devices such as those of applicant that may employ a touch screen capable of recognizing multiple simultaneous touch points." "It has been determined, by the Commissioner for Trademarks, that a clear error has been made in allowing this mark to be published." Groink (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

16GB iPhone

Isn't there now a 16Gb iPhone, and rumours of a 2nd generation iPhone?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombsc (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there's a 16GB iPhone, it came out some time ago and that info was added to this article long ago as well. As for rumors of a 2nd gen iPhone, we don't include rumors or speculation on Wikipedia. Only accurate info that can be verified by a reliable source. -- Atamachat 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

does the iphone take vidios

please can spme one tell me if the iphone takes vidios as well as photos and how much is the newest one cost in pounds? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.222.15 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not a forum for questions or discussion about the iPhone itself, this is to discuss issues only about this article. Secondly, if you go to the other features section of this article your question about the camera is already answered. If you want an answer about the cost, look up the iPhone in Google or visit AT&T's web site. -- Atamachat 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

iPhone commercial shows Wikipedia

Just a saw an iPhone commercial last night which shows the phone's user using it to access Wikipedia's article on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Advertising information belongs in the Apple Inc. advertising article. Groink (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Critics

Seriosuly? No one? no one has anything bad to say about it? I've seen lots of complaints online, but no complaining or critisims hhere. Yes, I did not spell good. So what.--135.214.40.68 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A separate criticism section is not within Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, Wikipedia encourages all criticism to be placed within the context of the sections. Also, most of the time criticism can be considered POV. By having the criticism blended in with the other sections, information that counter the criticism can give the article the balance it needs. If you're looking for something along the line of "The iPhone cannot __________", this is not the place. Groink (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a critism section, the iPhone lacks even basic function of a phone, the bluetooth only pairs with handsfree kits so you cannot send/recieve files from friends. Also you cannot send and recieve MMS. I think instead of praising this phone as the ultimate phone it should have some critisms, but it should be done correctly. Not like "the phone is rubbish because it can't do this or this. 212.219.220.125 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn´t much point in having a section that mentions all the stuff it doesnt have. All its features are covered fairly well. This article is only about the iPhone, not to compare it to other superior handsets such as the Nokia E50 and Nokia E61. The article doesn´t praise the iPhone - at least it shouldnt. If you can find a phrase that ´praises´ the iphone it should be removed Towel401 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but isn't it notable that it lacks functions that even 90% of handsets have? Jay794 (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again (how many times must I say this) you can add that kind of information into the existing sections. Just DO NOT create a criticism section. We already discuss the iPhone lacking 3G, stereo bluetooth, copy/paste, etc. Did you actually read the article, or did you just look for the criticism section and found there there isn't any??? IMHO, creating a section just for criticism demonstrate laziness on the part of the editor, and that he doesn't have what it takes to blend the information into the article. It also shows the laziness of the reader if he's looking for the criticism section, bypassing everything else before it. Groink (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But that's what Wikipedia is for. Its for easy to access information. Almost every product, person, or historical event has a criticism section. There's nothing strange about the need for one with an iphone. Also, the most serious problems with the iphone are not even listed (or hidden imho) in the method you have described. There have been many serious problems with reception on iphones. Many reputable sites (Tom's hardware) have done studies on the hardware and found it lacking in that region. There is also a serious problem with reception in Britain at the moment. Go check out the Blackberry wiki. Notice a criticism section there? Personally I love my iPhone, but it has some serious deficiencies and they should be mentioned. - Hellkyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.123.51 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If there are iPhone issues not listed in the article, and they can be verified with reliable sources, please feel free to add them at the appropriate locations within the article. It's interesting that you hold the BlackBerry article up as a standard because it has a Criticism section; that page needs work and even has a template requesting that the article be fixed. You say, "Almost every product, person, or historical event has a criticism section." That's not true, and the articles that do contain criticism sections are often articles that need to be changed. Please see WP:CRIT, where it states, "In general, making separate sections with the title 'Criticism' is discouraged." -- Atamachat 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, at one time Wikipedia had a guideline (not a policy) where inclusion is not a proper argument. In other words, if X and Y articles have criticism sections, it does not mean that ALL articles can have the section. In Wikipedia's eyes, it just means that X and Y are in violation. Groink (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to go mental Groink. Just trying to contribute Jay794 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article lacks a criticism section. This expensive piece of trash has more issues than religious fans, and so a criticism section in which normal people can express their view on this pocket size god surrogate shielded from fanbois is needed. Thanks. Femmina (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just repetition of Groink, but we can still mention criticism without the criticism section. And stylistically speaking, the consensus here in wikipedia is blending criticism into the article is better. This is per Wikipedia:Criticism. I would add that I think the problem with the criticism section is that the section is often abused. Oftentimes, it contains language like "product X doesn't have Y" and the end result is that it reads like a blog or ranting. Maybe the section can be written tastefully, but that's usually a challenge and simply getting rid of it is a simple and effective solution. -- Taku (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we has criticism with the criticism section for the iPhone? Plz? And another thing... This article is incorrect and biased from the very beginning. functions include those of a camera phone is false according to the very article it links to. And that's just the beginning of the second sentence. Femmina (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting WP:CRIT:
In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet:

And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

– Jimbo Wales

Femmina's earlier comments about the iPhone is just an example of the trolling Jimbo is talking about if we actually had a criticism section here. Groink (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And you don't want to make Jimbo sad, do you? To me your reply sounds like an admission that the iPhone sucks so bad that opening a criticism section on the article would be a disaster for your much loved Golden calf. And what about the fact that this article claims that the iPhone is a camera phone when in reality it is not because it lacks video recording and MMS capabilities? Femmina (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have some news for you... I don't even OWN an iPhone. The only Apple product I own is a 5G iPod. If there's anyone active in this article that can edit without any form of bias, that would be me. And as I recall, a camera doesn't take motion video. Call me old, but I don't recall a Polaroid camera recording videos or sending out morse code. The iPhone IS a camera. The iPhone is a cellular telephone. Therefore, the iPhone is a camera phone. Groink (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A Camera and a Camera phone are two different things. Basically, a camera phone is something capable of sending and receiving MMS. Not just a camera with a phone taped on it. It's true that an MMS can contain no video or include just a picture or be just text, but that's irrelevant because while the iPhone can somehow display the content of an MMS, it can not send them. So it's very misleading for the public to state that the iPhone is a camera phone, because the de facto standard capabilities needed for a phone to be considered a camera phone are lacking. And that's just about the first half of the second sentence of the article. Femmina (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A few things to note here... 1) that definition of camera phone in the article is uncited. The debate over the camera phone requiring MMS is just as debatable as a smartphone requiring 3rd-party native application support (which in its article it was cited that there is no industry standard definition.) I believe the MMS is assumed because at the time most people defined the required transmission method as MMS when there was no EDGE network or equivalent with access to the Internet. So I wouldn't rely on the definition given on that article. Instead, If I were you I would fix that article by citing a reliable source on that MMS transmission requirement. 2) I assume you actually meant the 3rd sentence and not the 2nd, since the iPhone does have a vitual keyboard, along with the home and power buttons. To take apart the 3rd sentence... The iPhone is indeed a portable media device; it has all the features of the iPod, and is virtually identical to the iPod touch despite it being a cell phone and a camera. The iPhone can transmit text messaging; again, SMS is not the the ONLY protocol for texting. You can also text using Internet protocols and applications. Even people who use IRC and other chat systems consider their messageing systems as texting. There's even an SMS web-based application available for the iPhone. Again, the text messaging article on Wikipedia lacks citing of resources for its requirement that it must use SMS, which you can also fix if you feel so strongly about it. And, the iPhone does support visual voicemail, as AT&T had to modify their system to allow the iPhone to pull down voice messages in any order the user wants. That fact was demonstrated by Steve Jobs when he demonstrated the iPhone back in January 2007. This feature was actually one of the reasons Apple went with AT&T - as AT&T was the only company that allowed Apple to basically call all the shots such as providing this feature. So as I see it, none of the statements in that entire paragraph are false. What you have to do first is fix the Wikipedia articles that cover those features, and THEN come back to this article and make the necessary fixes that reflect the proper sourcing in those other articles. Groink (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the iPhone a "camera phone"?

Too long, didn't read, sorry. But just looking at the length of what I suppose is a very detailed rebuttal of my arguments, can we agree that the matter in question can be considered at least controversial and that stating in the article as a fact that the iPhone has the typical features found in other camera phones is wishful thinking? Femmina (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So, since nobody is replying anymore, I'll go on and edit the page to remove the statement in question. Femmina (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the definition of a 'Cameraphone' above is a bit outdated. The iPhone natively supports email for sending pictures, with a much wider audience than just MMS. So in my mind the functionality of the camera is better than my Nokia which although a 'cameraphone' by the above definition, can only send via MMS, and not email.Phooto (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- and Wikipedia's own definition of a Camera phone is "A camera phone is a mobile phone which has a camera built-in."
As I said before, the iPhone may have some camera-related capabilities, but not those one would expect from a camera phone. Any other cellular phone on the market today advertised as a "camera phone" can send and receive MMS. The iPhone can't. Femmina (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And wikipedia's definition of a camera phone is not: "A camera phone is a phone with a camera taped to it" as you say. Its more complex but one salient point in my opinion is this one: "Camera phones share pictures instantly and automatically via a sharing infrastructure integrated with the carrier network." The iPhone can only share pictures using some other additional service as it needs at least an email server and the carrier in order to share pictures. That not counting the fact that it can't share nor record small movies like most of the other phones on the market today. Femmina (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Femmina - please do not misquote me. I quoted Wikipedia, and did not say what you said I did. It does certainly have camera functions, and by the way, it's far easier to send a picture to someone else using an iPhone than my Nokia, or other phones I have used. Just because MMS is what the others use does not inherently make it the way to send pictures. MMS downsizes pictures, email does not. I added the word 'camera' back in to the article in any case. Phooto (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) - The iPhone has a camera (which doesn't do video and that is in the article just FYI), but do we need to call it a "camera phone"? Does that really matter? If anyone objects to that, and Femmina obviously does, just make sure the article never calls it a "camera phone" and that's that. I don't think it makes a big difference to avoid the phrase "camera phone" in the article as long as it does mention that it has a camera in it. -- Atamachat 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Femmina didn't read my last long comment (a good editor always covers himself), let me repeat one more time: the Wikipedia definition for camera phone is not cited in its article. As someone else indicated earlier, the MMS requirement is old. Back then, there were no Internet-based phone, so MMS was the only way to transmit photos. IMHO, transmission of photos via the Internet IS the future, so it may be helpful to search around the Internet and trade publications for a credible UPDATED and industry-strength definition of a camera phone. Groink (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing that got to me while reading the edit comments... "Consensus", according to Wikipedia, does not mean "if I throw out an edit concern and no one answers it, then we've reached a consensus." According to Wikipedia, a no-answer means that no consensus was reached and therefore things should stay as-is. The edit Femmina pulled just now under the assumption of consensus was totally against policy. Groink (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The issues involved here are:

  • The definition of "camera phone" is disagreed upon between the editors.
  • We would normally refer to another Wikipedia article for verification on the definition. However, in this case, even the parent article's definition is uncited.
  • Suggest fixing the camera phone article FIRST so that we can settle on a properly referenced definition.
  • Based on the properly cited definition, we will be able to edit with confidence whether we refer to the iPhone as either a camera phone, or a phone with a built-in camera.

This is the approach I recommend using. For the record, I do not favor one way or the other. The only direction I favor is that we edit with proper consensus and with proper citing of information. Groink (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, they are logical and fair. I just thought that avoiding an issue that (in my personal opinion only) seems so minor would be in everyone's best interest, but I suppose that coming to a consensus on this will at the very least improve the camera phone article, so it's probably a good idea. As for what is a good definition? I've come up with a couple of hits, you can debate their reliability. PC Magazine states, "A cellphone that has a built-in camera." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2008 states, "A camera phone is a cellular phone that also has picture taking capabilities. Some camera phones have the capability to send these photos to another cellular phone or computer." I'm having trouble finding other sources that explicity define what a "camera phone" is, but both of those sources suggest that it really is just a phone with a camera built-in. -- Atamachat 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out List of camera phones. Apparently someone added the iPhone to the list. This is what I'm getting at - the definition is unclear and with wishy-washy wording. I already added fact tags on the camera phone article. The wording in that article is also very un-encyclopedic as it uses lingo such as "typically", "usually", etc. Someone can then sneak in there and say "Well, the iPhone is not a typical case, therefore the MMS is not required," and allow it to slide in as a camera phone. The definition needs to be absolute! 100-percent of all phones that meet the criteria are camera phones. Groink (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The camera phone article is biased and full of POV from someone with a narrow definition of a "real" camera phone, see the talk page for arguments about that. In any case I can take a picture of my iPhone and instantly send it via email, how is that different from a phone with MMS built in? -- Atamachat 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure the iPhone has a built-in camera. Still, it can't be considered a camera phone because it lacks some of features that most other camera phones on the market today have. That's a fact. But now tell me something... Let's keep it between us... How can I contact an Apple representative and get paid to defend this article, leave it as an huge advertisement and get on your side? I'm tired of fighting for this factual accuracy thing. :3 Femmina (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? Wikipedia is: 1) no original research, and 2) verifiable with credible sources. As of right now, all you've basically told us is that if a majority of X has Y feature, then gosh golly darn if Z lacks Y, then for sure it can't be X. But you've totally lacked supporting your information with VERIFIED and CREDIBLE references. Believe me - you can have a Ph.D in Telecommunications and are an employee of RIM or Motorola. You could've even invented MMS for all we know. But you CANNOT publish original information. You've got to find expert sources that support your own information before it is allowed on Wikipedia. The more you keep defending your un-sourced opinions, the deeper a ditch you're digging yourself into. If you totally disagree with Wikipedia's requirements, then maybe blogging would be more your speed, rather than editing here. Groink (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sir, it's you that don't get it. See, camera phone is somewhat marketing speak and it's not supposed to mean something absolute or that's never supposed to change. But what the market sells you when you a ask for a camera phone is most probaly a modern, 3G phone with the ability to record video, audio and exchange MMS. Not a crappy iPhone. Also, please never compare me to a blogger again. Femmina (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Who cares about your opinion Femmina? Whoop de-do. We'll just say that the "crappy iPhone" has a built-in camera. Phooto (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please everyone remember to be civil, we're presumably adults here. Femmina, your suggestions are unsupported by any reliable sources so we can't include them. You've made some fairly blanket accusations here about the editors who've worked on this article and it's not helping your case. I'm an iPhone owner and as such I've complained about a million times about what my iPhone can't do or does poorly (I still think my Treo was a better smartphone) but you won't see my opinions in this article because this is not an op-ed piece. Phooto, don't let Femmina bait you, there's no need to respond that way because nobody's going to take their opinion seriously until there is something presented to back up this "factual accuracy". Let's stay civil on all sides here, thanks. -- Atamachat 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear... I never wanted to include something. I wanted to exclude something from the article. So your original reserch accusations are irrational and very biased. Femmina (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your reasons for such exclusion are based on personal opinion and contradict sources provided, and that is why they are being rejected. -- Atamachat 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me approach the problem another way... Articles like iPhone are what I call "bottom-feeders", meaning it does not introduce any new terminology to Wikipedia that didn't already exist. Rather, it is is the reverse - the iPhone article relies on terminology defined in other Wikipedia articles. Terms like "smartphone", "camera phone" and "multi-touch" are all defined in their own Wikipedia articles. Like any other web site, terminology in all articles within Wikipedia MUST carry the same meaning and context. The idea here is that when the root article for a given term is changed, ALL articles that link to the root article are affected. For example, the Japanese word "aoi" usually means blue. And later on, someone refers to a bluebird as "aoi tori" (bluebird). Down the road, someone finds a sourced definition for aoi and come to find that it really means green. And all of a sudden, the meaning of aoi tori is affected. It is vital that the root article defining the term is handled first, and then all articles using the term are edited to take on the change. An editor should never change the definition of a term within a bottom-feeder article like iPhone if the root article defines the term as something else. If there is any article that needs to be addressed, it is the camera phone article. And as of this writing, it appears that another editor is currently fixing that article, and the definition given there is consistent with the term's use in the iPhone article. Groink (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course its a damn camera phone. Its a phone with a small, poor quality camera module shoved in there somewhere. If it was built from the ground up as a camera, then had a GSM module in it somewhere it would be a phone-camera. Early camera phones were far more craptastic than the iPhone. Once a camera phone, always a camera phone I cant believe this discussion has gone on for so freaking long.Towel401 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, uh, to recap: does anyone other than Femmina have a problem with the iPhone being referred to in passing as a "camera phone"? It looks to me like there's pretty clear consensus that it is a "camera phone". But, I, too, invoke tl;dr. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only person who even suggested we omit the phrase other than Femmina was myself, and that was to avoid controversy (which clearly didn't happen). Based on the sources I found it seems that a "camera phone" is truly "a camera with a phone". If Femmina comes up with a better source to contradict that I would support them, otherwise it seems that Femmina is the sole objector and the consensus is to consider the iPhone a camera phone. -- Atamachat 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read through the majority of this debate. It is extremely pedantic, but I have to agree with the majority. Unless Femmina can provide a reliable source on the definition of a camera phone that requires MMS and video, it is pretty clear that by most (every?) definition, the iPhone is a camera phone and should be described as such. The level of debate for this one small issue is pretty ridiculous. ~ PaulT+/C 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Femmina when you wrote "Any other cellular phone on the market today advertised as a "camera phone" can send and receive MMS. The iPhone can't." that is fallaciously linking two aspects of the device and trying to make one aspect mandatory (MMS) for the other aspect to exist (camera phone). The Camera phone article doesn't mention anything about MMS being mandatory. Fnagaton 10:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Apple lovers, I've a small confession to make here. I didn't start this discussion because I thought I could stand a chance against your madness. As Paul noticed, I baited you and driven this discussion to a completely ridicuols ground deliberatily. And I did this to have my friends and anybody else I care in real life that was thinking about buying something form Apple to come here and read this discussion. Some of them will hopefully never buy anything from this technological/religious supplier. Thank you for your help. Have a nice day. Femmina (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, YOU have a nice day. Groink (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd persuade me more if you could spell properly. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sir, my family was too poor to send me to school when I was a kid and I had to start working 10 hours a day in a factory at 16. Maybe you're more privileged than me and you could afford to have some english classes. I've never had that luck in my whole life. You insensitive clod. Femmina (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)