Talk:IPhone/Archive 9

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

Upcoming 3G iPhone

AllThingsD (http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080430/moritz/) is reporting that "AT&T is planning to put some extra shine on the even sleeker new Apple iPhone. When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy."

The source of the AllThingsD article is (http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/29/att-to-cut-the-price-of-apples-new-iphone/) which also reveals; - The new iPhone is expected to be released on the one-year anniversary of the original iPhone debut June 27 or thereabouts. - The new iPhone will be 2.5 mm thinner than the 11.7 mm original. - The new iPhone will also have a GPS chip for navigation and other location-based services. - Apple is expected to have two versions of the new iPhone, an 8-gigabyte-memory and a 16-gigabyte-memory model with price tags widely expected to be $399 and $499. - AT&T is preparing to subsidize $200 of the cost of a new iPhone, bringing the price down to $199 for customers who sign two-year contracts.

I think it is time to add this information to the main article.


GlobalMaverick (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)GlobalMaverick

I don't think it is really desirable to give this much detail for an unreleased product. I mean, the article will definitely be updated once 3G iphone is out. That said, I'm hearing a lot recently that 3G iphone will be released in June. Is this more than just a rumor? -- Taku (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote from [1], "Everyone seems to think that Apple will be announcing a 3G iPhone this coming June,". Everyone but Wikipedia at this point. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can add this kind of info to the article but it has to be very well-sourced. I read that blog, and while a blog connected to CNN can be considered a good source in many cases, they admit in the article that AT&T and Apple won't comment and that all this information is from some unknown source. -- Atamachat 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
John Gruber at Daring Fireball posted this great deconstruciton of the subsidy rumors, along with a pretty sharp critique of the other alleged "inside information" being bounced around, you might check it out. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of past history, it is very uncharacteristic for a partner or other associate of Apple to reveal information about an upcoming Apple product before Apple. Even if a piece of information is well-sourced, IMHO it should come from Apple. If it were any other company, then the 3rd-party information could have some credibility to it. But in the case of Apple - who's known for anything but leaking information (and even purposely sending false information in different directions to detect leaks in the social system), the source of the information is even more vital to Wikipedia's credibility. Groink (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently someone tried to enter 3G info using Computerworld as a source (thanks Groink for the revert), but that article even said that both Apple and T-Mobil (the provided over in Austria) refused to comment on it, Apple called it "rumor and speculation". Again, all that we have is guesses and rumors. Wikipedia isn't an online gossip magazine. -- Atamachat 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is an important difference between (i) writing an article based on rumors and speculations and (ii) mentioning such rumors and speculations. (i) is, of course, off-limit. But, (ii), I think we are allowed to do (ii). Maybe it's just me, but I am getting this distinctive impression that 3G iphone will be out in June. Also, do you think it is ok to add links to those articles via ref? Since news article titles often contain words about the date of the release, this amounts to the mention of the release date in the article, in effect. -- Taku (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, again read the policy I linked earlier, WP:CRYSTAL. There is no point in even mentioning rumors and speculation, that is not what an encyclopedia does. -- Atamachat 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

iPhone in Italy

In Italy, iPhone will be distributed by both TIM (Telecom Italia Mobile) and Vodafone, as wrote here --79.31.44.229 (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

iPhone's unlocking status in Germany not correct

Since Vodafone's injunction was overturned in Germany --- it means that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany.

T-Mobile Germany VOLUNTARILY promised to provide unlocking codes at the end of the iPhone contract in Germany. The key word is "voluntarily" --- again saying that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.75.87 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

India

I edited the link from Vodafone to Vodafone Essar.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

From Internet connectivity section:
"The EDGE network benefits iPhone users in the U.S. by providing greater availability than 3G, as carriers based in the U.S. do not have full 3G coverage.[34] By contrast, 3G coverage ranges from 60 to 90-percent in the United Kingdom.[35]"

EDGE benefits iPhone users cause it has limited coverage?? Its like saying dial-up benefits computer X users cause cable internet has limited coverage! Turning a drawback into a benefit like that is ridiculous.

"Since the iPhone's inception, the use of the handset for Internet connectivity has exposed one or more trends. According to AT&T and Google, the iPhone generated 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[36]"

This is a silly statement as the linked article compares iPhones data transfers with regular phones data transfer! Thats analogous to saying that "users who have computer with a browser and email have higher data transfers than users who only have email client", is that an interesting trend or just manipulation? Of course simple handsets will have lower data rate as they are only used for calling and texting, either compare iPhone users' transfer to other smart and PDA phones users' transfer or don't compare it at all.
Kezorm (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? "EDGE benefits iPhone users cause it has limited coverage??" Re-read the sentence you quoted again. Its pointing out that EDGE has the benefit of better coverage than AT&T's 3G network. As far as the data comparison, its comparing search stats, not data transfer overall, and pointing out how it is standing out from all phones, not just smartphones. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you mistyped your first argument, as you contradict yourself. But the example you gave is true. Being able to connect to the internet over a phone line is much more available than connecting over cable. However, a more current example would be dial-up (or cable) versus Verizon FiOS service, where access to FiOS is limited in a similar fashion as 3G and is considered a downside to the FiOS service. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kezorm. These paragraphs need work. Here is what they were:

The EDGE network benefits iPhone users in the U.S. by providing greater availability than 3G, as GSM carriers based in the U.S.(AT&T & T-Mobile) do not have full 3G coverage.[28] CDMA carriers, such as Sprint, do have full 3G (2.4Mbit/s) coverage available most everywhere but they do not use the IPhone. By contrast, 3G coverage ranges from 60 to 90 percent of the population in the United Kingdom.[29]
Since the iPhone's inception, the use of the handset for Internet connectivity has exposed one or more trends. According to AT&T and Google, the iPhone generated 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[30] The iPhone also increased the average wireless data usage as much as 30 times higher than on other phones, or 100 MB per iPhone customer.[31]

Note the poor grammar, spacing, and capitalization. Who added these paragraphs? Why even mention CDMA and specific carriers if the iPhone doesn't support it?

I have revised these paragraphs below:

The EDGE network provides greater availability than 3G, as GSM carriers based in the U.S. do not have full 3G coverage.[28] In contrast, 60 to 90 percent of the population in the United Kingdom have access to 3G coverage.[29]
The ubiquitous Internet connection offered by the iPhone has been widely utilized by users. According to Google, the iPhone generates 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[30] According to Deutsche Telekom CEO René Obermann, "The average Internet usage for an iPhone customer is more than 100 MBytes. This is 30 times the use for our average contract-based consumer customers."[31]

It could still use some work, but it has less bias and makes much more sense now. That said, when the 2nd generation comes out I'm sure these points will be moot anyway. ~ PaulT+/C 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Jailbreaking" the iPhone

This has come up in the past (adding "hacks" to the article) and there were recent attempts to add such information again so I thought it would be appropriate to start a discussion about this. I personally feel that there is no harm exactly in explaining how to unlock an iPhone, that information is already out on the Web and easy to find, so I think we don't need to censor the article in such a manner. At the same time, Wikipedia isn't a how-to and it's beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to instruct people in the best way to do so, so having links to jailbreaking programs and advice on the best method is not a good idea. I'd like to see if others agree. -- Atamachat 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only the WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:EL, and WP:NPOV that needs to be avoided. It is of course perfectly acceptable to say there are lots of ways to unlock the phone. I wouldn't even have much trouble, if someone wants to start a highly referenced (not WP:OR) article on List of iPhone unlocking tools, but whoever creates it needs to be very careful of WP:Wikipedia is not Google. BTW, for a laugh, check out my talk page on the recent editor. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I don't own an iPhone and never will. My take on hacking has always been the risk of damaging the iPhone. Most people don't believe that tinkering with firmware can render hardware non-functional. But for firmware engineers like myself (a former ROM-BIOS engineer), we've seen it happen a lot over the years - with everything from cellphones, gaming machines, PCs, etc. The problem is that I cannot find sources that support my experiences, as I believe either no one is admitting he messed up his iPhone, or the chatter is being drowned out by the pro-jailbreakers. It is impossible to use a chat board as a reliable source, in that even if someone admitted to bricking his iPhone because of a hack, one can easily write it off as hardware damage that wasn't linked to the hack. I also believe that the jailbreaking community is a very adamant and somewhat scary group - to the level where they lose credibility because they're so energized and enraged about it they loose all sense of focus and bodily functions, and start blabbering their mouths off, such as what the editor did with KelleyCook's talk page. When people are energized like this, it is really to control the content or tone of the contributions. Most of it would end up being anti-Apple or anti-this and that, which is what I believe is the driving force behind this almost radical-like movement. I don't like engaging in edit wars with these people, and therefore I'd rather just avoid it altogether rather than deal with what some of us consider fancruft. We can mention jailbreaking - basically the purpose of jailbreaking. I wouldn't go any further than that, such as endorsing tools, web sites, or that you can restore the iPhone to factory condition. Just the fact that one must cover his tracks before sending the iPhone in for service is quite peculiar to me. Groink (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Discontinued

I just read on iLounge that o2 and Carphone Warehouse are not restocking the 8GB iPhone once they have sold out. Is this due to them making way for the new 3G iPhone? Jay794 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider anything short of an announcement from Apple as reliable information about availability and product plans. We've heard from Steve Jobs and several others (from AT&T) that a 3G version is coming this year, but nothing more. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Could be as simple as just a 16GB and 32GB version. More likely in the short term IMHO. Phooto (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but there is are loads of discussions going round about the 3G iPhone, with a GPS. Will be interesting to see what happens at the WWDC. Jay794 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

o2 has stopped selling the iPhone.http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/08/iphone-is-good-and-done-in-the-uk-until-the-3g-version-anywa/ Should o2 and the UK be removed from the carrier list? Technically the iPhone doesn't have a carrier in the UK anymore... 122.106.242.135 (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is no longer accurate, as o2 are still selling the 16GB version online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.98.172 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You should call o2 to see if they REALLY have the phone in stock. Web sites have a tendency to be out-of-date. Groink (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Info Box

Is it just me, or do other editors feel that the infobox has lost its purpose? The infobox is supposed to be a quick sheet of sorts, kind of like a sidebar, and should be very short in length. But right now I must scroll about 1/4 of the article's length to reach the bottom of the infobox. And the carrier list is the cause of it! Is there some other way of presenting this information? Maybe move the carrier list out of the infobox and move it to the body of the article itself? Groink (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox is getting way to long. Maybe there could be a hide and show button for the carrier list? Mvjs (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've put the carriers under a collapsible list. I think it works a whole lot better. Mvjs (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't know that can be done. That's MUCH better! Thanks! Groink (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Blurred out images of the iPhone

Why have all the images of the iPhone's display been blurred? --194.164.80.71 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, which disallows any use of copyrighted material. The original images can be uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair-use license. -/- Warren 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then, we should probably get images that are not on the commons, but can be used under fair use in the USA. I have a phone, so I assume I can take a picture of it, with the interface, for the purposes of an article on the subject of the iPhone. And frankly, the one blurred picture of Wikipedia on the iPhone is pretty ironic - I don't think Apple has copyright on wikipedia (or do they?) Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You assume wrong, because the Interface is copyrighted everywhere (including Wikipedia) and even a picture you take yourself of the iPhone is under Apple's copyright if the interface is in the picture. -- Atamachat 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, where did you get that interpretation of copyright law? It is not correct under any definition. The images do not have to be blurred. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at the discussion here and draw your own conclusions. -- Atamachat 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the discussion and apparently did not come to the same conclusion that you did. However, instead of debating it here, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.
The blurred Wikipedia is amusing, all they would really *need* to blur are the interface elements themselves, not the content, but that would be... weird. Arguable stranger than just blurring it all. Regardless, I think we need some WP-hosted fair use images for this, it looks horrible with the blurry ones. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Atama, I did read the arguments, and drew the conclusion that they don't even address the point.
Much of the thread is Groink talking about GFDL and the Commons in the context of images taken from the Apple web site. He states this quite clearly in his last post, "Let me state one more time, if anyone uploads an image to English Wikipedia that was pulled off from apple.com, it will be reverted and deleted."
But we're not talking about images taken from the apple web site. We are talking about images taken by end-users and released under a license compatible with the GFDL. What has happened is that someone convinced the user in question (Frijole?) that taking an image of a copyrighted image makes the image unsuitable for a free license. Atama, your statement above is just plain wrong, as KelleyCook has noted.
Maury (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
p.s. Atama, is that the thread you wanted us to read? It refers to an earlier one about blurring, but I can't find that one.
The issue, as I understand it, is that we cannot have photos of the interface on the commons because images there are not supposed to be restricted in how they are used. If they had been uploaded to the english wikepedia only, and used for the iPhone article, then it's fair use. Fair use under US law allows for photographs and screenshots for the purpose of illustration in an article dedicated to the topic. If you were to check around, you'll see this is very common on Wikipedia. This is why we can show screenshots of Windows 95 and an example of of Mac OS X. Oh and here's an example Palm OS. Now, if you still think we cannot show images of the iphone's interface, please chime in. Otherwise, let's get a photograph that's not from the commons, that doesn't look stupid, and be done with it. Mattnad (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Unblurred versions of all the images are available in the history of the images on Commons. -/- Warren 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I might have to dig up the discussion that predated the discussion that I already linked, but the consensus was that no iPhones and iPods should show the home screen (the basic interface) and after that, all such images were changed or deleted. You'll notice that I already mentioned that discussion in that archived topic I linked. -- Atamachat 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This "consensus" you referred to is now being argued against, and is therefore no longer consensus. Didn't take long, did it? We had complaints from multiple people within hours of the images being replaced. I can guarantee you this -- if those blurred images stick around for long enough, people will start replacing them with better images that meet the English Wikipedia's fair use image polic. Frankly, they look fucking stupid, and for no particularily good reason. Tell you what -- if you can get the copyright owner of the non-free part of those images to say that the original non-blurred images are not considered acceptable and would take issue with unlimited downstream use of those pictures, I will donate $100 USD to the Wikimedia Foundation. -/- Warren 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. I was just repeating old discussions/decisions, I don't like the blurred images either. -- Atamachat 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply have un-blurred images on the site until we get a request from Apple to remove them (thought I can't ever imagine them doing so). If Apple truly has a problem with pictures of it's interface, they would simply request that Wikipedia remove them. Apple is not the Gestapo, they will not destroy Wikipedia for having images of the iPhone interface. 74.73.75.65 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Would it be OK to replace blurred-out images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with images directly from Apple's website, hosted on Apple's website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.75.65 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Apple's images would be a copyright violation unless they gave permission for use. Now where it gets interesting is if someone else takes a photo of an iPhone. Then it's debatable about what's subject to copyright. There's a very technical, and sometimes poorly informed argument in the commons about whether it's ok for us show a photo taken of the device but not of the interface which may (or may not) be protected by copyright in that context. Long story short, there are a few editors who take a very hard line on what's permissible and it has nothing to do with the likelihood that Apple might sue Wikipedia. It's more of a political argument within Wikipedia about how images can be used.Mattnad (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The reality is, companies don't pursue everyone who posts a picture of their devices. If we were to blur all images of the iPhone interface, why should we not have to blur images of the OS X interface? (I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas) Think about the fact that we've had pictures of the OS X interface up for who knows how long, and yet, we've never incurred the wrath of Apple. (As far as I know) There are millions of pictures of the iPhone available online...why would Apple wish to single out Wikipedia for copyright infringement? And good job, Ausis, remedying at least part of this problem.24.239.166.200 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited a bit blur in pictures...now the blur is not so hard and pictures (in my opinion) look a bit better and still the "copyrighted parts" are kept obscure...so what others think?...Is so alright or I must restore that previous version?Ausis (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding Redundancy

This is an offshoot from the images discussion. Reading through the comments, it made me think of an even bigger issue: redundancy and lack of cohesion between the three major articles:

From what I'm been reading between these three articles, there is much too much redundant information. For example, let's say Java came out for the iPhone. That same information will be repeated on the other two articles. IMHO, this is poor management of the articles. The three articles should be treated as a series, rather than be three totally separate articles, each attempting to cover 100-percent of the device or OS.

The iPod touch is actually the hardware foundation of this line of iPod hardware, while the iPhone is basically the iPod touch with additional hardware and software, and iPhone OS being the common OS between the two. As someone stated earlier, the iPod touch and iPhone articles should focus on only the hardware, including multi-touch. The iPhone article should emphasize on the additional hardware that the iPod touch lacks. iPhone OS should then encompass all the software-related information - including applications, software upgrades and updates. If you look at the Mac OS X and the various Macintosh articles, you'll notice that they take a similar organization to what I'm proposing here.

I think if we can re-organize the articles to somehow complement each other, then when we do have issues that come up such as the blurry imagery, then we can better address these issues in a more consistent fashion. Groink (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)