Talk:IPod/Archive6

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

iPod Classic

-it should be noted somewhere that when the 5th generation iPod "classic" came out most people just called it an iPod "video". personally i have never really heard it called classic before, i know it as the ipod video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naalberg (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hacking?

Could the article do with perhaps some mention or even information regarding hacking of the ipod? Not in an instructional sense, but rather information about it, as I'd imagine that such an aspect of the ipod does deserve at least some mention, akin to things like cellphone hacking, GBA hacking, homebrew 'scenes', etc.

Since I don't actually own one and really have no interest in buying one, I'm obviously quite ignorant of whether it's even possible, let alone whether there's any kind of collective behind such a desire, so it's more of a point of curiosity for me than anything, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists, would it be warranted to at least mention it in some way? 66.175.212.7 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Using a very lose definition of the word "hack", you can hack youtube with software called TubeSucker and fill up your PC and Video IPOD with videos downloaded to your hard drive. It hacks past youtube's interface which is all about waiting for your video to download. Once videos are on your hard drive, or IPOD, there is no waiting. Fast forward, skip to the next video with one click....things like that. But as for directly hacking the IPOD, I don't know what benefit you could derive from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.249.189 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really a way to hack, an Ipod, also, why would you need to? However, there are ways to do things such as transfer music from an ipod to a computer instead of the other way around, and there are ways to convert video files to Mpeg-4 video to be played on an Ipod.

Repost if you want to know how. (btw this is purely informational) There is also an ipod diagnostics screen that May count as a hack? Hold center and up, and an apple logo appears, hold center and left and itll take you to ipod diagnostics, WARNING, I have no real idea of how to return the ipod to its original state, I just fiddle with buttons until it works again :) FrogEdit (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

meaning of "i" in the name "iPod"

Hello, I am just very curious what does the "i" in the name mean, and it's not explained anywhere in the article or in the talk page. It would be informative and nice to have it on this page. 140.105.48.199 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)21/6/07 12.32 Stefano

Internet, it says that it was registered for internet kiosks. Darrenhusted 11:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, are you talking about the sentence "Apple had previously registered the name "iPod" for Internet kiosks" ? In that case, the "i" did stand for "internet", but now it's no longer a kiosk, and I'm not sure, but I think you cannot connect to the internet with an iPod? So it would not make sense, would it?

Anyway, I found a possible answer at http://www.answers.com/topic/ipod?cat=technology

I quote: " IPOD is short for: Intelligent Portable Over Device (category Computing->Networking) "

So the "i" would stand for "intelligent". Interesting!

140.105.48.10 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Stefano

It was taken from "iRiver" - you know, the company whose early efforts to bring these things to the masses are credited to Apple. -- 62.25.106.209 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe iRiver was trying to (like everyone else at the time, it seemed) ride the coat-tails of Apple's iMac, which was introduced in 1998, a year before iRiver as a company even existed? MacPrince 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The "i" in "iPod" doesn't stand for "intelligent", neither was it taken from "iRiver". If I recall correctly, Apple has never specified a meaning. AlistairMcMillan 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it means "innovitave"?

  • Maybe it means "I have a simple memorable name that doesn't mean anything in particular so I can trademark it." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Apple had its iLife suite of programs, designed to make life easier, and possible more "user friendly". Using iLife and iPod is a marketing strategy, really. It's all in the head, using the letter "i", it makes people think it's more user oriented. The maketing dudes at Apple are brilliant. No, I don't have any source other than my brain and what I know of marketing strategy. Crad0010 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it started with the first iMac. Since then, Apple’s been putting a lowercase i in front of every name they could manage. What did the iMac’s i mean? My guess is it means “I”, the first-person pronoun. —Frungi 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


[1] (look around 00:40) "internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire." There you have it. Said right in front of us in 1998. --Char645 07:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


The tradition of "i" started with the Mac, After the intial Mac's the internet ready Mac was named, simply the iMac. This becoming quite a brandmark was carried over to the Pod, hence it being named the iPod. Utkarsh Rastogi (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

black and white clickwheel model in fourth gen

I remember there being a period of time where there was a black and white model featuring the clickwheel as well as the ipod photo featuring the clickwheel. this is backed up by the Japanese wikipedia page. I would know, since I have seen and used one of these. Why is this not in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.253.122 (talk • contribs) 00:39, June 23, 2007

Perhaps you are thinking of the U2 themed black iPod. AlistairMcMillan 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that person isn't. There WAS a black and white 4G iPod, I have one.Smoothy 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how the models chart is confusing and misleading. The fourth-generation iPod was not the "(photo)" (as the fifth was "(video)", it was notable for the clickwheel. A quick trip to the Apple specs page gives us the following:

The fact that a fourth-generation iPod with black-and-white screens existed for half a year goes almost without mention in the article.

I'd fix it, but don't have time right now. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 16:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Exception To

Devices in the iPod range are primarily digital audio players, designed around a central click wheel — with exception to the iPod Shuffle, which uses buttons because of its size.

This is not correct English. "with exception to" should be "with the exception of".

(It is possible for someone to "take exception to" something, but that means the person doesn't like it, not that the something is an exception to a rule.) 207.31.229.4 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, I made the change for you. That phrase is now written as it should be. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

question about the Sales Section

with regard to the Sales section - I followed footnote 64 to see how these claims were justified.

"Since October 2004, the iPod has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players.[64] During the year from January 2004 to January 2005, the high rate of sales caused its U.S. market share to increase from 31% to 65% and in July 2005, this market share was measured at 74%"

In following the link it appears to me that the reference indicates that PC's control most of the computer market and therefore 90% of the market is still available for Apple to sell to.

perhaps this just needs a new footnote.

Dogsofgod 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Operating System and UI development

The article states, the iPod ran "a commercial microkernel embedded operating system". It would be more informative to write, "FooOS, a commercial microkernel embedded operating system". Does anybody watching know which OS the non-OSX iPods run? This page: http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index6.html suggests it's an OS by Portal Player, but doesn't name it. That page also suggests that Pixo provided the UI toolkit for the iPod but Apple engineers designed and implemented it. The Wired article linked to justified that Pixo came up with the User Interface ("Apple contracted another company, Pixo, to help design and implement the user interface, under the direct supervision of Steve Jobs.") actually says, "The interface was mocked up by Tim Wasko, an interactive designer who came to Apple from NeXT, where he had worked with Jobs. Wasko had previously been responsible for the clean, simple interface in Apple's QuickTime player. Like the hardware designers, Wasko designed mockup after mockup, presenting the variations on large glossy printouts that could be spread over a conference table to be quickly sorted and discussed." Some clarification/cleanup with corroborating sources would be helpful.

It has never been publicly called anything other than "iPod OS", but that still is not used often by Apple and does not appear that often in iTunes, the iPod itself, or Software Update. I think what's written about it in the article is just fine. --Char645 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OS on the iPod

Steve Jobs said that the next generation iPod would have OS X on it, however, he may have been refering to the iPhone. Could someone please tell me if Steve Jobs announced this statement before or after the iPhone presentation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.236.206 (talk • contribs)

I think he meant the iPod software on the iPhone - NateJay 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then could you change the part of the article that says some next generation iPods will have OS X? Because it seems he was reffering to the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.236.206 (talk • contribs)

He stated at the Town Hall meeting shortly before the iPhone's release "We have one team working on OS X... OS X for the Macintosh, OS X for the iPhone, and OS X for some cool new iPods we're working on". Check it out. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


This was meant for the iPod touch, though the iPhone was launched earlier, but still the statement was indicating to the iPod touch which has OS X running. After all iPhone was named the next iPod.

My iPod

Isn't featured in any of the generations. it's a 20 gig with a modern scroll wheel, and a b/w screen. the headphone jack is in the center of the top. there are no raised menu/play buttons around the wheel, or separate ones under the screen. so yea. 65.33.64.202 22:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have a fake. . .
Yea, I was about to say are you sure its an iPod, cause there are a lot of look a likes. -- Chris as I am Chris 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you are right, look [2] -- Chris as I am Chris 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be the standard 4th Generation iPod, it's all in the article. The only 4th gen iPod with a color screen is the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.176.133 (talk • contribs)
No, the iPod photo was a separate model, and it’s physically different from the color 4th-gens anyway, though functionally identical as far as I know. The photo came in 30 (rather than 20) or 60 GB models, I believe, and it was thicker. What you have is a monochrome 4th-gen. —Frungi 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct. The photo was the non-monochrome 4G.--HereToHelp 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, no, the photo was a different model. That model disappeared when color and photos were added to the 4th-gen. —Frungi 12:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But the case has the same design and dimensions. There might be info on the back, but a quick glance at the front when the unit is off won't tell you what kind it is.--HereToHelp 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question About Criticisms

I may be completely mistaken, but to me, it seems like some 'weasel words' are being used in the Criticisms section. I understand that under Criticisms it's a bit hard to be objective, but I suppose the best way to explain what I mean is to give examples. As such here are some of the instances I saw:

"Despite its own criticisms, Apple later '''complained''' that its competitor, Sony, had misled consumers in its advertising for Sony's music player. Apple '''complained''' that Sony had not considered real-world usage." - I think the word complained makes Apple sound like a child, and is not really an appropriate way to word the sentence.

"The initial cost was US$99,[37] and it was lowered to US$59 in 2005. One week later, Apple offered an extended iPod warranty for US$59.[38] Third-party companies offer cheaper battery replacement kits that often use higher capacity batteries." - I'm not sure the 'fact' that third-party companies have cheaper kits is relevant to the objective reporting of the criticism, unless it can be sourced as an additional complaint... maybe?

And the following example comes from the Patent Disputes section:

"On 24 August 2006, Apple and Creative announce a broad settlement to end their legal disputes. Apple will pay Creative US$100 million for a paid-up license, to use Creative's awarded patent in all Apple products. Apple also negotiated a '''scheme''' where it can recoup part of its payment, if Creative is successful in licensing the patent." - I think the usage of the word scheme can be universally acknowledged as an inappropriate word choice.

I could be entirely mistaken on these, but either way, thank you for taking the time to consider them. JamisonK 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You get that undesired formatting effect when you start your paragraphs with a space. ;) As for your concerns, why not go ahead and fix them yourself? Or, you could tag each word with {{weasel-inline}}. See WP:WEASEL and WP:AVOID. Carson 05:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you, I guess I have a severely compulsive problem when it comes to pre-paragraph spacing. Anyway, I didn't fix it myself only because I wasn't sure if I was just being crazy and no one else saw a problem with it. In any case, I shall go mark them. Thanks. JamisonK 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing these out. I've edited the article to fix these issues. AlistairMcMillan 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the "Thunderstorms" section was removed. --Queer As Folk 14:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

last i checked, a newspaper was a credable source...slightly confused as to why thunderstorms was not included.76.116.99.168 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "complained" makes someone sound chilidish. You lodge "complaints". You voice "complaints". They had a complaint and complained. I do think it shouldn't be in two sentences right next to each other though. Perhaps change one to a different word? CHSoarer 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The offending sentences were removed two months ago. AlistairMcMillan 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And my answer was answering a query he had on how something sounded. It matters not when it was corrected on the page, it's still open for discussion right? CHSoarer 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Generation

Hey, should there be a short section discussing the upcoming 6th generation iPod? It is rumored to have a widescreen/touch screen display like the iPhone... It may be worth pointing out and then updated as Apple Inc releases more info in the coming months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.51.212 (talk • contribs) 08:05, July 8, 2007

Please see WP:CBALL and WP:ATTRIB. We tend not to report rumors. AlistairMcMillan 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

mediamonkey

Why is there no mention that players other than itunes, namely mediamonkey, are perfectly capable of synching playlists etc with the ipod devices? I mean, reading the article it implies a total tie-in with Apple software, which isn't the case (much though Apple might like it!). 172.200.129.87 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We do say "several alternative third-party applications are available". However if we list one or two examples by name, then we just end up with people extending the list until it grows to ridiculous proportions. So it is safer just to not list any. AlistairMcMillan 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"On 31 December 2006, workers at the Taiwanese factory (owned by Foxconn) formed a union. "

This is misleading. it is a taiwanese owned factory but it is located in china and all the workers are chinese.

sounds like an ad

i like iTunes as much as the next guy but doesn't this sound like an ad:

"Apple's iTunes software is used to transfer music to the devices. As a free jukebox application, iTunes stores an entire music library on the user's computer and can play, burn, and rip music from a CD. It can also transfer photos, videos, games, and calendars to the models that support them. Apple focused its development on the iPod's unique user interface and its ease of use, rather than on technical capability. As of April 2007, the iPod had sold over 100 million units worldwide,[1] making it the best-selling digital audio player series in history."

User:Arthurian Legend 19:26, August 7, 2007

I don't really think this sounds like an ad at all, the only part that makes it remotely ad like is saying "ease of use" - but since that was one of the biggest factors in design (as well as apple's computer/operating system design in general), I don't really think it's inappropriate. Gracewastes 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot wrong with iTunes but no criticism of it is included in this article. It definitely sounds like an ad. I was prompted to comment here because I tried to edit the passage about iTunes but found the article protected (why is this? to protect apple's advertising copy?). It is highly misleading to describe iTunes as a "free" app - it is proprietary freeware and not free software at all. Please change this. User:79.66.3.250 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the iPod, that's a pretty good reason why there isn't criticism of iTunes in this article. If you want to edit articles that are semi-protected like iTunes and iPod, all you have to do is register for an account and make some edits to articles that aren't protected to prove that you can be trusted (i.e. aren't here to spam or vandalise articles). AlistairMcMillan 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the iPod and iTunes articles don't link to "free software" so I'm not sure why you are complaining that they are. The iTunes article clearly states "Proprietary (free)" in the infobox and has done for months. AlistairMcMillan 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was a link to free software, just that the article misleadingly describes iTunes as a "free jukebox application". If we were talking about free beer it would be clear that we meant something that was being given away for free, but in the context of software "free" has a specific meaning that makes this sentence ambiguous. That's why it should be reworded. I should not have to register an account to point out a problem. Wikipedians who can't be bothered to correct their mistakes always fall back on this "so fix it" excuse. You've chosen to take part in the editing of this article so you fix it! I'm just a reader who has better things to do than correct every one of the millions of mistakes in Wikipedia left by sloppy editors. The passage quoted is very positive about iTunes, so there should be some space for criticism (just a "however, ..." will do). Phrases like "iTunes stores an entire music library on the user's computer" makes this article read like the work of an Apple fanboy (an entire music library! not just half a music library?!). User:79.75.176.222 09:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is no need for criticism in that passage, when it's clearly more appropriate for the iTunes article. And your argument over the word "free" is irrelevant. The application is free of charge to download and use. -- Kesh 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why not call it "freeware" or something similarly unambiguous? The word "free" has a specific meaning in the context of software and it's misleading to bandy it about in this article as if you're unaware of the connotations. Please have a look at the article on free software and the disambiguation note that introduces it. User:79.75.176.222 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but when your average punter hears the word "free" in connection with software they are going to think it comes with no charge. Assuming that the average reader is going to be aware of the "free software" movement, is a mistake. AlistairMcMillan 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you'd agree that Wikipedia articles should, where possible, be written both for people who are familiar with the subject and the average punter. Your logic is absurd: Wikipedia is here to make people aware of things, and should use accurate terminology that doesn't mislead. I cannot be bothered to argue any more. You are further proof that Wikipedia is the province of a mob of snivelling fanboys with no idea about academic standards of verifiability or any decent commitment to neutrality. There is no justification for semi-protecting this article if it's going to stay in the grip of people who would probably be happy to be irrumated by Steve Jobs as he dictated advertising copy for you to spam the articles with. What is the problem with acknowledging that the description of iTunes in this article is unbecoming of an encyclopaedia in its current glowing tones, and should either be shortened or balanced? What is wrong with acknowledging that the word "free" in the context of software is at worst misleading and at best ambiguous? Why don't you just sort these problems out instead of sitting on this article like it's your personal fiefdom? I hope someone else will come across this discussion and add their thoughts if you don't sort out the problems that have been helpfully pointed out to you. User:79.75.176.222 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"irrumated"? Wow, I had to look that one up. You learn something new every day. I don't think we have a policy page I can point you to that covers this subject, but could you please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself while discussing article context. Many thanks. AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term freeware, the use of the term with regards to iTunes is incorrect. Freeware is used when referencing software that was made by an individual or a group that is regarded as non-profit, and that they allow their software to float around planet Earth in very form possible (shareware/freeware CDs, on web sites totally unrelated to the person/organization, user groups, etc.) For example, FileZilla is considered freeware, while Internet Explorer and Skype are not considered freeware. Until 10 years or so ago, Apple's Macintosh operating system could be downloaded for free, BUT they only allowed distribution from their own FTP or web site, thereby the OS wasn't considered to be freeware. The use of the word freeware has been used in this context for well over 25 years since my involvement with the Apple II. Just because there's free software out there doesn't make ALL free software freeware. Groink 08:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you point us to any reliable sources that back up your definition? Our article on freeware doesn't say anything about it having to be produced by non-profits. It does however say the term was specifically coined by someone who not only intended to generate profits, but actually charged users for his "freeware". AlistairMcMillan 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No direct sources for this - it is basically info I've collected in my head since the 1970s. However, I remember one possible place I read about this... the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy pointed out the idea of freeware back during the TX-0/PDP-1 days of the 1960s at MIT. The term freeware was used throughout the TMRC when programmers there would throw coding tape into a drawer, allowing others to dip into the drawer and use the code in their own programs. The idea I got out of this is 1) they were all hobbyists (later in another article I read they criticized Bill Gates for selling his Altair BASIC code to MITS), and 2) the tapes could be placed anywhere and not just in one place. So again, no reliable sources I can stick my fingerprints on at the moment. Groink 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Do iPods come with AM or FM radios?

Since the article does not say, I could assume the answer is "no" but you know what they say about the word assume. I know other MP3 players include radios, and so it might be worthwhile to say, somewhere, whether or not iPods include radios (so readers like myself don't need to guess). - 162.58.0.64 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a search through the article for "radio" and you should find your answer. --Steven Fisher 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Apple, or other third-party companies, made a seperate FM radio recever that must be bought in order to use the iPod's FM option.--Megamanfan3 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Search done Steven Fisher. Nothing found that says whether or not some models of iPod include a built-in receiver. - Theaveng 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a skill one needs when reading Wikipedia, called "deductive reasoning". In this case, if you search for the word "radio", you'll find that the word is found under "accessories" and includes the string "FM radio tuners". Applying deductive reasoning, an accessory is a piece of equipment that is separate from the device of topic. And since "FM radio tuners" is found under accessories, it can be determined without further research that the iPod does in fact LACK a radio. Listen folks, my TV doesn't come equipped with a GPS device or an alarm clock. But the manufacturer doesn't have to stick that information into its documentation or advertisements. Same thing with the iPod - we don't have to explain what the device lacks just because a competing device has it. If the Zune all of a sudden came with a meter for measuring distance between your golf ball and the green, that doesn't mean we must also mention in this article that the iPod isn't good for golfers. Deductive reasoning, folks... Groink 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the iPod is one of the few devices out there without an FM radio, I don't think the original request deserved such a reply (and I say that as an iPod fan/owner, one who happens to use the radio remote so I can pick up TV broadcasts at my gym...) --Rehcsif 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Genericized trademark

Could the term iPod be used to refer to all forms of current-age MP3 players?

Keaton 9:27pm est 9/1/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaton (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no. It isn't even nearly as close as things like kleenex or xerox machines. An MP3 player is referred to as such - an MP3 player. If someone says he has an iPod, it should be taken for granted that he does in fact have a model of iPod produced by Apple Computer. Also, other types of devices within the Apple line, such as the iPhone, is not considered to be an iPod, even though the device has all the functionality of an iPod (playing MP3s and AAC files, interfacing with iTunes, etc.) Groink 03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, some may say it's the opposite. For example, some people don't even realize that an iPod is actually an MP3 player. 67.41.164.160 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Heres my take on it. Lets use cars as an example. You got Ford, Chevy, Honda, Toyota (4 random car companies). Would it be appropiate to call the Toyota a Ford? The Chevy a Ford? A Honda a Chevy? No, it wouldn't. Therefore, you should only call a Ford a Ford, etc. And in this case, the iPod should only be called an iPod, a Zune should only be called a Zune, etc. AquaStreak 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The word iPod is not equivalent to MP3 player, as the previous posters said. A Chevy is a Chevy, and a Ford is a Ford. However, arguably, the term photoshopping is slowly becoming slang for "editting." ex: "That picture is obviously photoshopped." This is still wrong, seeing as Photoshop is a product, thus the usage is incorrect. (Adobe issued a statement about this, because it was almost like product name infringrement or something.. Anyways, this discussion has been driven into the ground. iPod is still iPod, and does not mean MP3 player. Goldy496 09:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP; the term 'iPod' has come practically synonymous with MP3 player whether you like it or not. Whether such a statement correct or not is not the issue: not all 'vacuum cleaners' share a similarity to 'Hoovers' but are still referred as such. Many a time have other-branded or generic MP3 players been casually referred to as iPods, which constitutes it as a genericised trademark. This kind of thing should go in the 'impact' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.143.103 (talk • contribs) 3:03, December 25, 2007

I have to disagree with the above post, i own a regular MP3 player and i would consider it an insult for it to be called an Ipod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It ain't going in the article until someone comes up with a reliable source. So there is no point giving your opinions either way. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you're insulted or not, it doesn't matter. As I said, a genericised trademark isn't a case of whether it's right or not. Do you think Dyson appreciate their products being called 'Hoovers'? Or any other PA company having their products referred to as 'Tannoy'? I doubt it. But that doesn't stop it being a genericised trademark - quite the opposite, if anything. Personal feelings don't come into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.250.199 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any proof of iPod becoming a generic trademark (or at least on the verge of becoming so) you only need to look at the word 'Podcast'. It is not a name for anything else. Podcasting is just that; Podcasting. Pretty much no other word is used for it. And it's pretty obvious what is being referenced in the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.136 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you need full-on direct proof, Wikipedia itself states iPod is. Right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.136 (talk • contribs) 21:38, January 6, 2008

Firstly Wikipedia is never accepted as a reliable source. Secondly when User:GaryReggae added iPod to that list he didn't include a reliable source to back up his edit. So it isn't on the list anymore. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gen 6 released?

This can't be right, but at my local Wal-Mart, in the Ipod display case, there was a black 30GB Ipod that I could've sworn said right on the box that it was 6th Generation. I know this can't be right, because it looked just like the other Ipods but with a different picture on the box, and there's absolutely no word on a release of a new Ipod. But I'm positive about what I saw. Can anyone tell me if there's a stated release anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fersnachi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out there has been mention of a new 6th gen iPod. Stay tuned to the news on Sept 5th, I hear they will release the new line. But it is to my understanding that the new model will likely feature a touchscreen the size of the entire body, no click-wheel, a larger hard drive and a Mac OS. I'm not sure what you saw but the time corresponds with the release date (albeit a bit early). -Lt. penguin TalkEdits 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
We can mention, and do, that there is a press conference and they are expected to release new models. We can't be sure. Nothing beyond that goes up without sources from Apple, which only time will provide.--HereToHelp 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Now the conference is over, all the info is on wikipedia. /thread. -Lt. penguin TalkEdits 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Wal-Mart has incorrect info regarding the iPods. Yes, they had marked the 5.5 Gens as 6 Gens. But now that the new iPod line is out, lets ignore it. AquaStreak 10:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant. Although it is the exact sort of thing Wal-Mart would do.--HereToHelp 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW PHOTO

Hello, I've noticed this before and still nobody has taken action. We need to get an iPod photo that has a main screen in english,the one up now is german. If there is someone who has an image it would be appreciated you uploaded it. Thanks! --bobsmith319 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If Apple unveils a new main-line iPod, we'll be getting a new photo anyway :).--HereToHelp 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New iPods Launched

can someone update this page with the results of the apple press confrence? If not done by tonight, I can do it, but I am busy currently. The article is at www.cnbc.com/Id/20586426 . The results are a new nano with a 2.5 in screen, 24 hr battery, 4 or 8 gig @149 and 199 dollars each. New ipod model with 160 gigs, for $349 and the normal iPod renamed the iPod classic and it will be 80 gb only now for $249. Also the iPod touch which is the iphone screen but just an iPod. It also has wifi for safari, youtube, etc. 8 gb for $299, 16 for $399. Also a wifi music store. Sorry I can't edit now, but I just found out at the apple store and its hard to edit on their iPhones.. 17.255.241.150 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC) not signed in hairchrm.


Hah! I should have just used a computer. So I'm renaming this "New iPods launched." I'll get to this when I get home. We will need to redo all the charts. Sorry, I still haven't signed in because it is a public computer. 17.255.241.150 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (User:Hairchrm)

Classic/Touch

I've noticed in the "models" table that the iPod touch has been given its own section as the first generation of a new line. But the iPod classic, on the other hand, has gone back and forth from being the sixth generation of the standard iPod and the first generatin of its own line. Is it safe to assume that the way it's set up now is correct? That is, the iPod touch is a new "brand" and the classic is the 6G iPod? Just for the record, I've also seen people calling the iPod touch the 6G iPod. I just think it should be cleared up. Pele Merengue 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

as per apple's site, touch is its own line and the classic is 6G. Furthermore I think that in the table of all the models under the notes for the 6G iPod it should be mentioned that it does not come in white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.226.61 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If you watch Job's keynote speech announcing the iPod changes, he says they're naming the iPod "classic" not only to differentiate it from the touch variety but also to give it a final, definitive name and not "5G/6G" etc. I think the name of the article should be changed to iPod classic, with iPod as a redirect page. I apologize, I misunderstood the purpose of this article and now understand it refers to the iPod line of products and not juts the flagship model. Thanks, RAmen, Demosthenes 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think wii need moar newz to tell the difference between the 6G and the touch one. Wikifan21century 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The iPod classic should definitely be merged back into this page; the iPod spinoffs, on the other hand, should prolly stay where they are. David Fuchs (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the merge back into iPod. iPod Classic is basically the same thing as the last iPod. Also if you go to Apple's website they now show each line of iPods: iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPhone. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
HOWEVER, the iPod spinoff articles go into detail about the spin-off line. The main iPod article doesn't go into any details about the classic line. For such detail to be put into an article about the iPod family/brand in general is cumbersome and inappropriate. THEREFORE, the iPod classic page should be expanded to accomondate the iPod classic and the classic iPods. Butterfly0fdoom 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
in that case there should be one article for ipods generation 1-5 + classic (in witch they are all retroactively referred to as classic?) and one for the ipod line of products in general. The 'classic' line of design of ipods is no less worthy of its own page than the 'nano', 'mini', shuffle or 'touch'. In this scenario, the photo and video will also have to be merged into the 'classic' page. For the record I think it should be expanded so that all models have their own articles. If they are merged, it will be unfeasible to have the full technical details and release dates for each individual model, which, in my opinion, is wikipedia worthy information.--80.86.74.135 01:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Who merged? we didn't agree on anything...--80.86.74.135 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So why does the 5G have its own article? 67.41.164.160 02:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, links referring to "iPod Classic" need to be fixed then, as well as there is no picture for the 4G iPod. (Which is the one I have... :D LN3000 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(So take a picture!! this was the best 4G picture I could find. A better one would be very useful.) PaulC/T+ 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the iPod touch should be classified as the 7th generation. It's totally different from the 3g nano and iPod classic which should be classified as in the 6th generation. No, the ipod classic should stay on it's own page, theres pages for the 4G, 5G so why shouldn't the classic get one. Ipodman 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's the first generation of a new line. by your logic, the classic is still first generation, minis were second, and nanos third. If anything, the touch is an alternate version of the iphone, so it could be called iphone 1.1 or something, but i think it's best to keep it as 1st generation 'ipod touch'--80.86.74.137 14:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?

Who redirected iPod classic to this article? We haven't reached any consensus at all. Here's my argument for not redirecting: the iPod classic is basically a continuation of, well, the classic iPod, or the 6th Generation if you will. So why can the 5G have it's own article but not the 6G? The iPod classic is its own seperate model; this article covers all the models. 67.41.164.160 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proposal: change the iPod (5G) article to "iPod classic" and have that page discuss the main iPod line and the classic (which is the continuation of the main iPod line anyway). But to do that, we need to get "iPod classic" to stop re-directing to the main iPod article. And I don't know how to do that. But the classic article shouldn't have been deleted/merged, the 5G one should have. Butterfly0fdoom 08:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I got the classic page resurrected. That page should NOT at any rate be mereged with the main iPod article. This article is about the iPod brand and family/line, not the iPod product. The iPod (5G) page should be modified to accomondate the pre-"classic"-suffix classic iPods (or it should be merged with the iPod classic article). But for now do NOT DO ANYTHING TO THE 5G OR CLASSIC PAGES.Butterfly0fdoom 08:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I support putting g1-g5, photo and classic all in one article. I also think classic should be put as 6g in the chart with classic as a subtitle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I did the chart thing already. Butterfly0fdoom 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I put this in the talk page for the classic article, but I think it's relevant here as well

As I see it, we have two choices for keeping the ipod articles consistent. In both choices there is one general article for all types of ipods. In the first choice, there is one article for classic (including "all iPods with the traditional 'large' HD-based form factor and interface"), one for minis one for nanos, one for shuffels and one for touch. The second choice is one article for each generation/model (although updates, such as 5.5g, would be included in the 5g article). These aticles would incude full technical details, release dates, known common bugs or defects, details on how well they sold, and other relevant details. I prefer the second choice, but I sense that most people want to scale it down as much as possible.--80.86.74.137 14:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the former idea. To have one page for ever generation of every iPod is overwhelmingly excessive. Butterfly0fdoom 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Butterfly0fdoom. I also think the "iPod classic" covers all generations of the original (AKA classic) iPod. From the original 5GB 1G iPod all the way up to the 160GB "classic" iPod. -- MacAddct1984 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So expanding on that, I think the 5G iPod article should be deleted or merged into the iPod classic article, and the iPod classic article expanded to accomondate the "classic" iPod. Butterfly0fdoom 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wi-fi

somone please and go ahead and add wi-fi B and G are both supported. Just watching Steeve :http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/sep/s83522y/63827621b_1_ip_e_ref.mov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.137.24 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An addition to the "Models" chart

I was just wondering about adding the kind of drive the particular model has, whether it is flash or hard drive based. I thought I'd reach out for a consensus before adding yet another column to an already lovely chart. For models that have always had a specific drive, a !rowspan could be used, for fear of getting a bit repetitive. -- MacAddct1984 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i say go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

4G Click Wheel iPod

This whole chart is not uniform, what's with the photo for the 4th Gen iPod, who was stupid to pick that one, can we get one that shows only the iPod. And if the iPod "classic" is the 6th gen iPod, why is it so special it deserves a separation border. iPod photo should get it too then. Be consistant. Pumapayam 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the photo for the 4th Gen iPod. It was the only one I could (easily) find that was the monochrome 4th gen iPod. If you looked at the article history you would see my edit summary explained that the image needed to be cropped or a new one should be added. The image up currently is better than a redlink for an image which was what was there and it is better than nothing. Please, by all means, crop the image so it only includes the iPod or use the next image in the flickr photo stream which shows the iPod powered on. However, that image needs to be rotated in addition to being cropped. I agree about the iPod classic not needing a separate border, but then we would need to rename the whole line to iPod classic (which wouldn't be a bad idea actually...). In fact, I'm going to do just that. PaulC/T+ 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if we could get a photo of the unit actually being on, as the 4G "Click Wheel" and the 4G photo iPods look almost identical, except for the fact that the "click wheel" screen is black & gray while the "photo" is color. There is ipod_4g.jpg from Apple-History, however Apple owns the rights and while it is advertisement/promotional, there should be more free-to-use options available. -- MacAddct1984 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one: http://flickr.com/photos/newslighter/397895/in/photostream/ although it needs to be cropped and rotated. PaulC/T+ 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A change to the "Models" chart

Someone should change iPod classic on the chart to just iPod, and change "sixth" to "sixth (classic)," like the 5G and the photo, since everything before the 6G wasn't known as the classic, just this newest. I'd do it myself, but seeing as the page is blocked. . .67.41.164.160 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus has been reached that all hard drive based, 1 through 6 generation iPods are now deemed as "classic", just as all generations of screen-less, flash drive based iPods are "shuffle". -- MacAddct1984 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In the case of the shuffle, that's different. It was always known as a shuffle, unlike the classic. 67.41.164.160 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
steve jobs said something like "these ipods have never had a name, they've just been ipods, so now we are naming them 'the classic'". This implies that apple is retroactively naming the entire line of the original ipod as classic. this has been discussed already.--80.86.74.135 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
He also stated something like "People have been calling them 3G, 4G, 5G, but now we are calling them 'iPod classic'" AquaStreak 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod Photo

The current photo on the article does not include the iPod touch. It also includes the iPhone, which is related but not relevant. Is there a new photo available? -- Jasonwemyss 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're working on it. See Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#iPods. The ipod touch hasn't shipped yet, so it could take awhile longer.--HereToHelp 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, that didn't work out. It is bad to have Apple's fair use images, but unacceptable to use anyone else' images that aren't released under a free license.--HereToHelp 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Table broked

Yeah, the model table broke and I don't know how to fix it. 60.50.91.104 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

you break, you buy.--80.86.74.135 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

iPod Mini

Is it just me, or does the green iPod mini seem out of place in the model table? Is there any way we can get a better picture instead of the twisted/zoomed in green one? LN3000 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that too, though it may be that way to reflect the changes from the 1st generation to 2nd (I think it was just the color on the clickwheel). IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I did that. It seemed pointless to me to have no picture on the second generation iPod mini or to have the standard full image, because at that distance and that small it would have looked exactly the same, and the two images (1st and 2nd generation) would have been interchangeable. The colour difference is much more noticable now and you can actually see the colour on the click wheel, which is mentioned right next to it in the description part. There is an issue with the 4th generation classic image and the 1st generation shuffle image, and possibly the first generation nano too, which is the actual player is so white that some people may not be able to tell the difference the white plastic to the white background. After running the nvidia video calibrator on mine it is hard to tell the difference, but when I change it back to the factory settings it looks fine. It's just something to consider. JayKeaton 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of transparent image

Is it possible to replace the image currently in the infobox with this transparent one? While it doesn't make much difference, I think we should rather use the better version. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one minds, I went ahead and made the switch. If anyone objects, say it here. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection again?

While the level of vandalism isn't extreme, all of it is coming from anons, and it seems to never stop! How about semi-protection again? IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Competition

Should we add a subcatagory for competitions? --Rsrikanth05 11:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With the iPod's huge market share, what would you actually consider it's 'competition'? Seriously. There's a Digital Audio Players category that shows the 'also rans'. I don't think any of the 'other' models really stands out as a #2 or #3... --Rehcsif 02:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like the Sandisk Sansa, or the Transcend Tsonic. Rsrikanth05 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this "Transcend Tsonic". Shows how much competition threat it poses. AquaStreak 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is because most iPod owners do not know about other Portable Music Players. The Transcend Tsonic is more popular than the iPod in many places. --Rsrikanth05 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In my area, the most popular players are iPod, Zune, Zen, and Sansa. AquaStreak 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And the Tsonic is the most popular in my area.--Rsrikanth05 05:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And, in an ironic twist of fate, I've never even heard of the Tsonic, despite my extremely frequent stays in Taiwan. Butterfly0fdoom 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the SanDisk Sansa, and the Creative MuVo, or Zen, and Microsoft Zune? Also why not create a section about cheap, chinese imitations? --Rsrikanth05 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant and non-constructive to an article about the iPod and inappropriate for the article. If you want to know what competes against the iPod, Amazon.com can give you that information. Butterfly0fdoom 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I already know what are the competitions for the iPod. What is so non-constructive about it? The ipod is a PMP, so are the rest of them, which I mentiond. --Rsrikanth05 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More than half of the models of the iPod are NOT PMP's, but rather simply DAP's. AquaStreak 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the iPod is just a DAP, while the T.sonic is a PMP. Anyway, it does not matter, as you people are extremely biased towards Apple. --Rsrikanth05 —Preceding comment was added at 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How are we extremely biased? Other player's info and features should be talked about in their respective pages, not on the iPod article. And some iPods are PMP's; I was simply pointing out that most weren't (1-4 gen, mini 1 and 2nd gen, shuffle) AquaStreak 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to make this semi-protected.

Someone keeps replacing the main picture with a picture of a females breast. Can we put a semi-protection on this? -CamT|C 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked about the semi-protection too. And it's not only what you mentioned, but general vandalism is occurring on the article on a regular basis. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
do it--80.86.74.135 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFP is where you'd make the request. --ElKevbo 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardware Section

I think this section should go away, and be split off into all the model articles (e.g. iPod Classic, iPod Shuffle, etc.) In fact, most of it is probably there already. I already moved a lot of classic-specific content to the iPod Classic article, as it doesn't make sense to clutter the now-generic iPod article with things that aren't general across the entire line... --Rehcsif 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can get rid of the chipsets subsecton, but keep the other two. Butterfly0fdoom 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

External Memory?

I know the iPods have a whole lotta memory - but I don't want my 4-gig card to go to waste. Does it have a place to shove a Sandisk external memory card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.152.166 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, iPods cant support extra memory.Rsrikanth05 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Refreshed" Shuffle the 3rd gen?

According to this page, http://www.apple.com/support/manuals/ipod/ It says "iPod shuffle (2nd & 3rd Generation) (1GB)" But I thought it was still considered the 2nd generation..? AquaStreak 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Apple's been kinda confusing with the redesign of the whole line. They renamed all the original iPods (1st G, 2nd G, etc.) the iPod classic, and they consider a change of color choices a new generation. But, as it is Apple, if they say it's the 3rd Gen., it is the 3rd Gen. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the 1st-5th generation iPods are still referred to by Apple as still "iPod", "iPod with Color Display", etc., see here – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This has actually been discussed before. See here. Cheers - IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no it hasn't. That topic is slightly different. I'm talking about the iPod shuffle generations, not renaming the suffix. AquaStreak 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know you're talking about the shuffle, I was responding to Frijole. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

iPods and Crime

There's a report out linking iPods to the recent increase in robberies: http://www.urban.org/publications/411552.html Why was this link deleted from the iPod page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.73.245 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlwayne 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Earl Wayne

It was placed under "criticisms". It's hard to criticize a product over the fact that some hoodlums want to kill each other over said product (assuming, of course, the product and/or its advertising doesn't promote that). If someone wants to add this tidbit in a way that doesn't seem to blame it on the iPod itself, go for it. --Rehcsif 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The report does not blame iPods for crime, it just simply says that huge iPod sales are correlated with big increases in robbery. It's on the front page of the New York Times at the moment, and the Urban Institute is a leading think tank, so it is certainly a credible story. Where do you think it should go? Or is the idea that nothing negative should go on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.73.245 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't go under "Criticisms". Perhaps in the cultural references section? --Rehcsif 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disk Use

The article incorrectly claims that all iPods support disk use. This is not correct for the iPod Touch model.

You can access the files on it using utilities like iPhuc though. http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/21/use-your-ipod-touch-as-second-rate-400-usb-stick/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.24.2 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that, I saw it on Apple support, they say it is a common occurence. --Rsrikanth05 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

History and design subsection?

I propose an "Etymology" sub-section for the last paragraph in History and Design. I think the name origin is significant enough to warrant this. StevePrutz 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think a separate paragraph is enough. Ανέκδοτο 23:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Template conversion

From Infobox PMP to Information appliance. Both templates contain the same queries, with the latter suppling more to facilitate a broader range of devices. No data from this article was removed.

By the way, Infobox PMP is being considered for deletion. Newer articles like iPod touch and iPod classic already use Information appliance. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

the name of said product

I'd just like to add a personal observation, the name 'iPod' when you think or say it out loud has a meaning if 'Pod' is a verb. It wouldn't have to be seen just like that for there to be a meaning- you could also say it implies a fundamental association with 'Pod' as if 'i' and the 'Pod' are one entity. When I read or think the word iPod I get the feeling I'm being manipulated by the word from this implied association. The fact this implied meaning has it's own word implies it has some sort of truth- the fundamental oneness of 'i' and 'Pod' is a real enough thing to have its own word to describe this true function of real life. You're meant to say it as two words -like saying 'I Pod' but you read it as one, it forces you to connect yourself to the word- also the fact of 'i' being lower case and 'Pod' being upper creates an effect which I won't go into as its obvious what this effect is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.170 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what was just said ... :-) Ανέκδοτο 03:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You know what, I too have the feeling I've been manipulated in the past by the word "iPod". It's about time someone has had the courage to come out and make this public. Could you please expand further on the obvious effect of the mix of upper and lower case characters? Although I agree the effect is obvious, it still needs to be said. AlistairMcMillan 09:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. It would be great if someone made this point in public. I'm not an academic so I can only go on personal response but reading a lower case 'i' in the context of an advert (where you're supposed to associate with the person in the advert) gives me a nasty feeling - we all know intuitively what it means I think. You're supposed to write upper case 'I' if you're writing and you mean 'me'- when you read a lower case 'i' which means "you" - (the advertiser speaking) it has a negative effect - you're being (subconsciously perhaps) de-humanised slighty when you read it. This relationship is also emphasised in the pictures that go with the adverts - the 'i' human figures are black and the 'Pod' is white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.170 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And this relates to improving the article how? Mr.Z-man 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative firmware

I'd like to add a section, talking about non official open source firmware available for iPod (runs on ⅔ of all iPod models). It called Rockbox and have many features not available in official firmware (though it may lack some features of the official firmware and may have some impacts on the warranty). I have prepared a template, which I add to all players supported by this firmware (it runs not only on iPods). I've tried to make it neutral, not advertising and short and at the same time show the features which may be added to iPods installing this firmware. I think, this section may be of interest to anybody interested in iPods, especially enthusiasts and geeks.

The section contents is shown below (between two horizontal lines)

The Rockbox logo
The Rockbox logo

Rockbox is an free and open source firmware, released under GPL license. Among others, it supports iPod classic series (from 1st to 5th generations), iPod mini (both 1st and 2nd generations) and 1st generation of iPod nano. Rockbox main features include:

Note, that above features are subject to the platform limitations. Rockbox may lack some features of the official firmware (for example digital rights management) and may considerably change look and feel of the player. Depending on the manufacturer and reseller, usage of Rockbox may void player warranty.

What is your opinion about this addition?

ilia 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, you can reference Rockbox in the article, but do not insert that template into any of the iPod articles. I don't think it's appropriate at all. Butterfly0fdoom 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Added battery life column

As it was on the "to-do" list on this talk page and I had time, I went model by model and added the battery life. If I should change how anything is, just post your feedback. The battery is based on Apple's specifications, a brand new battery, fully charged. I have obtained the information for the battery life estimates from Apple's own website, at the following link:

http://support.apple.com/specs/ipod/

(Go to each specific model to see the battery life)

So, please post your feedback. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AquaStreak (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks great.--HereToHelp 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing

I recently watched a bit from a Japanese documentary which seems to indicate that the shiny stainless steel backs of the iPods are polished by hand, not in an automated fashion, by skilled artisans with a long tradition of expert polishing.

Is this the case for all iPods? for all iPods in Japan? If so, it might be an interesting bit to include in the article. Manufacturing methods and distribution (i.e. where are which parts created) more generally might also be interesting. Thanks. LordAmeth 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is really interesting. Yeah, it would be a good fact for the article. As for if it's only Japanese iPods, I'd highly doubt it for 2 reasons: 1) All iPods are made in China, so why would they polish some and not all? Because all iPods are shined when they are new; 2) North America has the biggest market for iPods, followed by Europe. Why would they only polish a smaller market for the particular player? AquaStreak 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New iPod timeline template

I have created a new timeline at Template:iPod timeline and propose that it is used in place of Template:Timeline of iPod models. Any thoughts?
Java13690 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

certainly cleaner. Go for it; David Fuchs (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I dislike it. The old one has colors that make it more distinct. I suppose the new one might be a little more readable however.--HereToHelp 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I did consider colouring the template along the same lines as the original template (i.e. shades of red for compact models and blue for full-size) but this requires a key which I think makes the thing look messy. What does anyone else think - coloured or not?. And is anyone able to centre the title ("iPod timeline v • d • e") please?
Java13690 16:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Despite being more readable, I just dislike the timing limitations of the type of timeline you created. It works for things that go by years, but the flaws of that kind of timeline for this type of application is apparent when it implies that the product was available in, for example, October when it was, in fact, released in September, yet you can't say that the previous generation ended in August because that would be just as erroneous. Butterfly0fdoom (talk)

Model table

I thought putting "Changes introduced" into its own row might help the layout.

Model Generation Image Capacity Connection Original release date Minimum OS to sync Rated battery life (hours)
classic first first generation iPod 5, 10 GB FireWire 23 October 2001 Mac: 9, 10.1 audio: 10
First model, with mechanical scroll wheel. 10 GB model released later.
second 10, 20 GB FireWire 17 July 2002 Mac: 10.1
Win: 2000		 audio: 10
Touch-sensitive wheel. FireWire port had a cover. Hold switch revised. Windows compatibility through Musicmatch.
third third generation iPod 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 GB FireWire (USB for syncing only) 28 April 2003 Mac: 10.1
Win: 2000		 audio: 8
First complete redesign with all-touch interface, dock connector, and slimmer case. Musicmatch support dropped with later release of iTunes 4.7 for Windows.
fourth fourth generation iPod 20, 40 GB FireWire or USB 19 July 2004 Mac: 10.2
Win: 2000		 audio: 12
Adopted Click Wheel from iPod mini.
fourth (photo) (color) fourth generation iPod photo: 30, 40, 60 GB
color: 20, 60 GB		 FireWire or USB October 2004 Mac: 10.2
Win: 2000		 audio: 15
slideshow: 5
Premium spin-off of 4G iPod with color screen and picture viewing. Later re-integrated into main iPod line.
fifth fifth generation iPod 30, 60, 80 GB USB (FireWire for charging only) 12 October 2005 Mac: 10.3
Win: 2000		 30/60/80 GB

audio: 14/20/20
video: 3.5/3/6.5
Second full redesign with a slimmer case, and larger screen with video playback. Offered in black or white.
sixth sixth generation iPod 80, 160 GB USB (FireWire for charging only) 5 September 2007 Mac: 10.4 Win: XP 80/160 GB

audio: 30/40
video: 5/7
Introduced the "classic" suffix. New interface and anodized aluminum front plate. Silver replaces white.
mini
(replaced by nano)		 first first generation iPod mini 4 GB USB or FireWire 6 January 2004 Mac: 10.1
Win: 2000		 audio: 8
New smaller model, available in 5 colors. Introduced the "Click Wheel".
second second generation iPod mini 4, 6 GB USB or FireWire 22 February 2005 Mac: 10.2
Win: 2000		 audio: 18
Brighter color variants with longer battery life. Click Wheel lettering matched body color. Gold color discontinued. Later replaced by iPod nano.
nano first first generation iPod nano 1, 2, 4 GB USB (FireWire for charging only) 7 September 2005 Mac: 10.3
Win: 2000		 audio: 14
slideshow: 4
Replaced mini. Available in black or white and used flash memory. Color screen for picture viewing. 1 GB version released later.
second 4 GB blue iPod nano 2, 4, 8 GB USB (FireWire for charging only) 12 September 2006 Mac: 10.3
Win: 2000		 audio: 24
slideshow: 5
Anodized aluminum casing and 6 colors available.
third 4 GB third generation iPod nano 4, 8 GB USB (FireWire for charging only) 5 September 2007 Mac: 10.4
Win: XP		 audio: 24
video: 5
2" QVGA screen, colors refreshed with chrome back, new interface, video capability.
shuffle first first generation iPod shuffle 512 MB, 1 GB USB
(no adaptor required)		 11 January 2005 Mac: 10.2
Win: 2000		 audio: 12
New entry-level model. Uses flash memory and has no screen.
second second generation iPod shuffle 1 GB USB 12 September 2006 Mac: 10.3
Win: 2000		 audio: 12
Smaller clip design with anodized aluminum casing. 4 color options added later. Colors were later refreshed.
touch first [[Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg|45px|iPod touch|
This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Saturday, 2 February 2008.]]		 8, 16 GB USB (FireWire for charging only) 5 September 2007 Mac: 10.4
Win: XP		 audio: 22
video: 5
With Safari browser, Multi-touch, Wi-Fi, and wireless access to the iTunes Store and YouTube.

- Pronoiac (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, when I first looked at it, I blinked like "wtf?!?". But after I looked at what you did, I think its great. It can also allow for more data columns above the "changes" row. I'm for it. AquaStreak (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the change, but it needs the pricing column, too. The formatting job you did on the 5G's battery life box doesn't work, either. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I did this partially to remove unwanted columns, not to clear room for more. In that mode, I'd ask the questions of what info do we really want to present. Is the price at release more than a historical curiosity now? And how exactly does the battery life box look to you? - Pronoiac (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this chart is much better than the one currently in the article. I saw we go ahead and change it. —Mears man (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur.--HereToHelp 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) - Pronoiac (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It was already implemented with some modifications........ Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That was a "thanks for liking the layout," not "thanks for changing it." Thanks for changing it, by the way. - Pronoiac (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the "I think this this chart is much better than the one currently in the article" comment, considering that it's not that much different. (I thought you were being sarcastic about the "thanks for changing it" part (still don't know if it's sarcastic or not), but I put respective tables in each iPod's article; it's less of a hassle to remove data if it's deemed unneccessary for a general iPod information table). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

iPod picture

We need a new picture for the iPods, the picture is blurry and the screen on the iPods should be turned off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleperson (talk • contribs) 21:34, November 26, 2007

Just for the record, the screens should be turned on. The reader needs to see what kind of detail the screen shows, what the new generation interfaces are and such. JayKeaton (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Wii web browser

---this has to do with the ipod but i was on my wii using the internet and i zoomed in on the ipod classic and noticed the rewind buttons arrows were not touching but on the fastforward side the arrows were touching —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adogbitme7 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jon Rubinstein/Tony Fadell

Okay, so User:Podfather (Rubinstein himself?) made an edit in October 2006 to removed the cited paragraph that credited Fadell as the team leader based on a Wired article and replaced it with a sentence crediting Rubinstein as team leader based on Levy's "The Perfect Thing".[3] Then later the same month, User:Geneffects added Anthony Fadell and Stan Ng as engineers.[4] User:IE added Jon Ive to the list in December.[5] User:Walloon added Michael Dhuey in March 2007.[6]

None of this is cited.

There seem to be a few different conflicting stories of the iPod's development. If there isn't one authoritative one we can point to, then I think we should just pull all these names until one appears. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Failure Rates

The link to MacInTouch failure rates is deeply misleading.

Not only is it a self-selected survey rather than a scientific one, but the linked article clearly indicates that both damage/drop failures and battery failure (specifically failure after long life, not failure early in the life cycle, which IS what people normally consider a failure) are counted as "failures" for their purposes.

And the data also doesn't appear to correct for length of ownership.

Thus that the 1st Generation 5GB model has the worst "failure" rate tells us nothing at all, given that batteries have a finite lifespan and even if the underlying failure rate for all the hardware was identical, the older models would have more drop/damage failures simply because they've been in use longer.

A note should be added qualifying the "failure rate" to indicate some of this; anyone not following the link back and reading it will almost certainly reach an erroneous conclusion, given what people normally assume a failure rate report for hardware to include - which is failures due to manufacturing defect, not failures caused by abuse or inevitable battery failure.

(EG. One does not say a laptop has "failed" after five years if the battery has died and one doesn't wish to pay to replace it. It's just as silly to call an iPod "failed" because one didn't wish to replace the battery, even if it's slightly more work. Battery failures in an abnormally short timespan are failures in the normal sense people take the word to include, but the MacInTouch survey reasonably points out that it didn't do that.)

It would be interesting to see scientific data on actual non-drop/damage and non-aged-out-battery iPod failures. But the MinT link doesn't (and in due fairness doesn't claim to) provide that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.87.181 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

percentage

"On October 22, 2007, Apple reported quarterly revenue of US$6.22 billion, of which 30.69% came from Apple notebook sales, 19.22% from desktop sales and 26% from iPod sales" this doesnt add up to 100% it adds up to around 75% was the rest in drug sales??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.106.81 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

what about software sales and itunes earnings? those arn't all the numbers acasperw (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite Article vs. Zero Article

I've been reverted several times on this, with vague warnings not to "ignite previous debate", as if by igniting debate I risk burning Wikipedia to the ground. Aside from the fact that I have no idea to what debate they are referring, I really don't care about a debate which reached a conclusion that would require sentences such as: "iPod has been upgraded many times" or "Many accessories have been made for iPod." To anyone with a passing familiarity with the English language, this is patently ridiculous.

The whole "it's a brand!" argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors. What about the Roomba, the Prius, or the Stratocaster? All brands, all referred to with the definite article. The only reason we are even having this debate is because Apple chooses to refer to the iPod in their marketing materials using the zero article, in what is most likely an attempt to anthropomorphize the product. Wikipedia is not bound by the idiosyncrasies of a company's marketing strategies.

Ask yourself, honestly, how you refer to the iPod in everyday conversation. Do you really say "Wow, the release of iPod really changed how I listen to music!"? There are over a dozen sentences in the article itself that refer to "the iPod", simply because omitting the article sounds ridiculous. Let's not embarrass ourselves with a slavish devotion to the cult of Apple.

Can we agree to use standard English here in Wikipedia, and not marketing-speak?

NiggardlyNorm (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Norm comes across as incredibly and unnecessarily abrasive, leaving out "the" sounds awkward in the examples he points out. I attempted to find previous debate on this subject but couldn't. If someone could point it out, I might change my mind. joshschr (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Those are products (or product lines). The argument in the past was that brands such as "Levis" and "Toyota" are not preceded by a definite article. It's in the edit history (03:31, 25 September 2007), and it actually wasn't much of a debate, just that no one brought up the definite/zero article issue until now since then. I think it's been debated in the archives, as well, but the general status quo (given that there are people that frequently edit the article that have left the issue largely ignored, I guess it's the status quo) is to use the zero article, as the article, looking through the edit history, has been using the zero article since 2005. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the argument, and I think in the intro, leaving out "the" sounds more natural. It's possible that Norm is just trolling, and I think there are fixes to those sentences that don't involve adding an article in front of every iPod. joshschr (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Norm is just trolling (looking at his contrib history), but there are instances in the page where article usage is appropriate and where article usage isn't appropriate. A lot of the history of the iPod page involves adding information but not accounting for the fact that, since the HDD iPods were renamed to iPod classics, "iPod" refers to all products under the iPod brand. A lot of changes need to be done throughout the page and that requires extensive combing through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly0fdoom (talk • contribs)
So the fact that it makes zero sense to leave the article off of the iPod doesn't matter, now that you have decided that I'm just "trolling"? I haven't heard one reason to leave it off. I've been admonished to not "re-ignite previous debate" which then turned out to not actually exist. Then I was called incredibly abrasive for no apparent reason. Now, people are "pretty sure" I'm trolling. All of this is standard internet ad-hominem immaturity and I can deal with it. However, does anyone have one argument as to why we should omit the article?NiggardlyNorm (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While I agree that this discussion has gotten off on the wrong foot, I'd caution against throwing around the t-word too lightly, please. Norm clearly has very strong opinions about the subject, but that doesn't mean he's just here to cause trouble.
I agree that in the lede in particular, no-the works better. I haven't looked at each individual instance of the word iPod, but I absolutely agree (of course) that 'the' should neither be mandated nor forbidden in the article. -- Vary | Talk 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, "Levis" and "Toyota" are brands, but those are not preceded by the definite article. "The Levi 501" and "The Toyota Prius" are products and are preceded by the definite article. "iPod" is a brand, "The iPod Classic" is a product. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Butterfly, I see what you are saying, however in this analogy, I would say the brand is Apple. Apple is a brand and thus shouldn't have an article. The Apple iPod is a product and thus has an article. Touch, nano, and classic seem to me to be more like different models of the same product. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Apple is the company. By no possible stretch is Apple the brand. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, i guess if you say so.NiggardlyNorm (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not OK. Butteryfly0fdoom made the comparison to "Toyota" and "Prius" which is directly analogous to "Apple" and "iPod," but it would defeat his agenda to admit it. Norm, you are clearly correct here. If someone asks you what kind of car something is, you might reply, "That's a Prius," not "That is Prius." Similarly with iPod. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The sentences Norm gave as examples could easily be fixed without adding an article
"iPod series have been upgraded many times"
"Many accessories have been made for iPods."
I don't think the problem is one of articles. It's just the same copyedit problem a lot of other articles have, so thanks for point that out and fixing it, Norm. However, your heavily sarcastic tone, aggressive dismisal of previous debate because you didn't like the outcome, and accusing the editors of this article of being apple hacks is pretty uncivil. I know, some people are just like that. I haven't encountered posts like yours on Wikipedia without someone cautioning the poster that they're about to break WP: Civility. And I agreed that something needed to be done even though I thought you might be trolling. It was hard to tell how serious you were, but since your tone has changed since then, I'll assume you weren't trolling. joshschr (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deindenting. Completely disagree with the 'not a brand' argument. The shuffle, touch, mini, etc are all far too different to be considered the same product. A 8 gig and 16 gig touch are different models of the same product. Shuffles and Touches are different products in the same line. In any case, this article currently treats its subject as a brand. The iPod is not that brand's name no matter how you look at it. If the argument is that this article is not about a brand at all, but a product, then that's a whole other discussion that would involve a complete rewrite of the article, not the addition of one word to the lede. If that's what you're suggesting, Norm, you're going to have to start by bringing some strong evidence here to support your position. -- Vary | Talk 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Josh- The debate that I "aggressively dismissed" turned out to not exist. I understand that I'm not going to get any apologies on that front, but take that for what it's worth. Butterfly, maybe my analogy wasn't apt, but no one has addressed the fact that everyone calls it the iPod. Maybe we should look at articles about the iPod in reliable sources. If it's commonly called the iPod we will call it that, if it's commonly referred to as "iPod" then I will cede my point. Acceptable? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Most people call the product 'the iPod,' which is why the pages for the individual products uniformly refer to them as 'the iPod such-and-such.' Given that this article is about the brand, you're going to have to find sources that refer to that brand as The iPod. "Apple's 'The iPod' brand music players were popular Christmas gifts," for example. -- Vary | Talk 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But this: The iPod is a brand of portable media players is just wrong. iPod is a brand; "the iPod" isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Who here agrees with Vary that the article is about the brand iPod rather than the iPod product? I think that is ludicrous suggestion indicating the presence of POV agenda. Also, why are people accusing Norm of incivility -- that is clearly exaggeration when invoked in this debate. Why the pro-brand people have trotted out all their guns is beyond me, but what I see in this debate is very distasteful argument techniques from proponents of marketting speech. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now, this article is about the iPod brand. It has been since at least 2005. That is not a matter for dispute or discussion, it is a fact. That's why the first sentence has long begun "iPod is a brand..." That's why there are sub-articles about all the individual players. Which specific iPod product is this article about, in your opinion?
And tone down your rhetoric, please. I'm not sure what 'guns' have been 'trotted out', but I think you need to find a way to make your case without accusing other editors of being shills for Apple. -- Vary | Talk 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"That is not a matter for dispute or discussion..." -- Whoa, user Vary, that is a warning sign. Get to a doctor! Ok, seriously, it is a matter for discussion. When you say, "The article is about the iPod brand," I disagree with you because the article is about the iPod line of products. An article about the brand would focus on the trademark, the logo, the market research, penetration of brand recognition according to demographics, and other things related to a "brand." This is an article about the line of products, not the marketing approach. In fact, this is not an article about the iPod brand. You might claim it is an article about iPod-brand products, but then you would have to use a hyphen every single time you want to refer to "iPod, the brand" vs. "the iPod, the product."
I think it is rather odd that you are mounting such a heated defense in respect of the iPod brand. Why? Do you want the article to about the brand or iPod-branded products? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Heated defense? You're the one who just jumped into this discussion by accusing one editor who you disagree with of lying to protect his 'agenda' and calling the statement that this article is about a brand a "ludicrous suggestion indicating the presence of POV agenda." You're hardly in a position to tell anyone else to cool off.
A brand is not just 'marketing approach,' but even if it were, it's irrelevant; we have a large selection of articles about brands; they do talk about the products sold under those brands, too. Yes, this article could discuss marketing and advertising, but it's too long as it is, which is why all of that has its own sub-article.
Enough with the accusations of pro-Apple pov and the questioning of other editors' motives. I am of the opinion that the article is and has been about the iPod brand, that the lede was acceptable prior to the edit warring over 'The', and that the previous version should be reinstated. What, precisely, do you feel needs to change about this article, and why? -- Vary | Talk 06:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Are we at a point where someone can go through and judiciously remove articles where they should not be used? joshschr (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Joshschr, we are not at the point where articles should be removed from the article. We may be at the point where marketing-speak should be removed. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I asked, then. I'd be glad to see any edits you would propose. joshschr (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A Third Way

Ok, I'm starting to see what you guys are saying. However, to be honest I don't think this article is really about the brand. The first sentence of the article is about the brand, but most of the article is about the product(s). I mean, the section on "connectivity" is clearly about the connectivity of the various iPod products themselves, and not the brand. So here is what I propose: zero article in the lead (and anywhere else where we are talking about the brand), but normal usage throughout the rest of the article, where appropriate. So "The iPod is associated with one host computer," would remain the same since it's talking about the product and not the brand. This way we can maintain a grammatically euphonious format throughout, and not have to awkwardly restructure sentences to stay in line with Apple-speak. Basically my fear was that this page would end up sounding like the iPod manual, which, to anyone who has read it, is clearly super-weird. And for the record, I am writing this on a MacBook, I have two iPods, and I love Steve Jobs. But I love the English language more.

Looking forward to your thoughts.NiggardlyNorm (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"zero article in the lead (and anywhere else where we are talking about the brand), but normal usage throughout the rest of the article, where appropriate." - Emminently wise. joshschr (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a wise approach. I joined the debate because I want to see good grammar and English, too. Zero article where inappropriate is bad grammar, and that's my issue here. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So we're going to "judiciously remove articles where they should not be used?". Sounds like what is done in a lot of articles on WP without a 10k debate and accusations of POV pushing over the word "the". :) We all want well written articles. Be sensible and we can all be friends while we write them. :P joshschr (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't think that's what we agreed to here. In my understanding we agreed to add the article pretty much everywhere except the first sentence. But thanks for the tip to be more sensible. Let me kindly repay you with some advice: statements like "since your tone has changed since then, I'll assume you weren't trolling," show a poor understanding of WP:AGF. Study up. :P NiggardlyNorm (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it sounds like the the appropriate article is to be used in the appropriate context, which would include a zero article for the lead sentence. It's rather hard to assume good faith when you're dishing out a sarcastic attitude right off the bat, too, by the way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the first comments made to your talk page accuses you of trolling and warns you against edits made to prove a point. It's a poor first impression. You first edit to this page was laden with such sneering sarcasm, I couldn't help but take the bait, which I shouldn't have. I apologize for using the word "incredibly" to describe the level of your abrasiveness. That was unnecessary and you called me on it. Since you are able to quote Wikipedia scripture, I assume you've read WP:AGF also; however, the fact that you immediately assumed there was some conspiracy by Apple marketers to use WP to anthropomorphize iPods makes me question that. If you must quibble that I use the word "judicious" to describe how you are going to go about adding articles, while you use the words "pretty much everywhere", fine, use your judgement to add articles pretty much where ever you think they are appropriate.
In any case, here I am rising to trollbait again. This is the first time I've really called anyone on the style of their debate, and I feel like I've wasted a lot of time on something trivial . The last word is yours, if you want it. I'll take iPod off my watchlist for a while and let things settle down here. joshschr (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but Joshschr is completely right here, guys. This is exactly the agreement we appeared to be coming to before the second round of POV accusations began. The semantic argument over 'judicious' is, dare I say it, so much smoke and mirrors, and it's not fair on him to call this suggestion a 'compromise' and treat his differently worded version of the same suggestion as pro-Apple POV. I'd also like to point to my first comment in the discussion: "I agree that in the lede in particular, no-the works better. I haven't looked at each individual instance of the word iPod, but I absolutely agree (of course) that 'the' should neither be mandated nor forbidden in the article."[7] That, too, sounds very much like what is being proposed here. -- Vary | Talk 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but Vary and joshscr are both very confused here, guys. The problem is not the word "judisciously", it's the "remove articles" part. The agreement I suggested was adding the definite article everywhere except the lead. Then joshscr tried to claim that this was his idea all along, when in reality he had proposed going through and removing articles, the exact opposite of what I suggested. How do you people not understand the pretty fundamental difference between "add" and "remove"? "Differently worded version of the same suggestion"? What could you possibly be talking about? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I direct you again to my first comment in this discussion, the point being that the only specific instance of the word that was being discussed (or edit warred over) was the one in the lede. That one, at least, needed to go. -- Vary | Talk 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What should we do with these sentences, examples from the current article?
  • "iPod came from Apple's digital hub strategy, ..."
Perhaps: "The iPod concept came from Apple's 'digital hub' strategy, ..."
  • "Uncharacteristically, Apple did not develop iPod's software entirely in-house."
"Uncharacteristically, Apple did not develop the iPod's software entirely in-house."
Thoughts? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Those sentences refer to the original iPod, so using an article is appropriate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Those tags need to {{seealso}}ed.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Out

Take out ----.68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that to go. AquaStreak (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)