Talk:IPod touch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dumbing, and owning

I'm chastened by this edit, which was a perfect reversion of my previous edit. Now, I'm all for reducing dumbness, but pray tell me how (to take the very simplest of examples) purchase and purchaser are less dumb than buy and buyer? Or again, how is has the capability to [verb] less dumb than can [verb]? Etc etc.

Incidentally, This later edit has the odd summary You're trying to use Wikipedia as a soap box for the pro-hackers of the world. I wonder about this assertion of motivation: is it really not possible that Pyriomaniaque was trying, perhaps in a clumsy way, to make the article more informative?

If I were to add my own warning in an SGML comment, it might be <!-- Please reread [[WP:OWN]] from time to time. -->. Hoary (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No response to the comments above, and perhaps this is part of the reason why two (or more?) other editors have worked on the prose. In the last few hours, I've joined them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How I've reduced precision

Before this edit of mine (as I write this, the latest), we read: The software upgrade is available for current iPod touch owners via iTunes download for US$19.99, £12.99 in the UK or AU$24.99 in Australia (plus footnote). I've changed that to: The software upgrade is available for current iPod touch owners via iTunes download for US$20, £13 in the UK or AU$25 in Australia (plus unaltered footnote).

I've thereby deliberately introduced an imprecision of less than one part in one thousand. Why? Well, the "— ninety-nine" pricing strikes me as mere marketing gimmickry. Apple's free to employ it, but we're free to ignore it. Moreover, what I've written is correct: "20" is a truthful rounding of "19.99" (whereas "20.00" would be [rather trivially, I think] untrue). Others here are free to disagree, and to revert. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. It may be marketing gimmickry but just about every single company does it, and I think most other Wikipedia articles reflect the correct price for things even if they do have the '.99' bit, so I don't see why this article should be any different. Jackster (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right: there is indeed no reason why this article should be any different. But it happens to be the first one I've edited that had this ".99" nonsense (and a lot of it too). If you're going to cut crap from WP, you have to start somewhere; I started here (and was candid about it). ¶ Do you think that "$19.99" is significantly more informative than "$20"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts... If it were up to me and I thought listing the prices was helpful at all, I would not round them off. As for the ".99" being nonsense, I agree spot on with Hoary that it is nonsense. I also think the rounding hides this nonsense along with the context of marketing flurry which goes along with this product. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand my chum DA pipes up that "19.99" announces to anyone who's interested that yes, Apple used this tried and true sales gimmick (see Sutherland, Irrationality), whereas "20" might well suggest that the company daringly did not, a wrong suggestion. ¶ Perhaps ideally WP should have a sitewide policy of rounding up "95", "98", and "99" prices, and announcing as much. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough (sorry!), I meant to spin it like DA: Rounding suggests the company is doing something daringly rational in its prices, which it is not. Rounding is hence misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand the logic: If I understand you correctly, you're saying "it's nonsense, so let's keep it" As Wiki is not a directory, we are discouraged from putting retail prices except when they are historically relevant. Use of the units after the decimal place appears to matter only from the sales (price pointing) perspective for any given product, but generally the simplicity of $13 over $12.99 within wikipedia is a clear advantage, and blows away the manufacturers' psychological lie. Just because there's nonsense in another article, doesn't mean this one should throw curve balls as well. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The content's not nonsense, one was saying the vendors' endless habit of pricing stuff at x.99 is nonsense. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bouncing leftwards. [Aargh, Gwen, all those colons shoot a discussion rightwards all too quickly.] ¶ It's nonsense and it's not nonsense. Let's assume for a moment that we do need to specify the price: $19.99 is only trivially different from $20.00, four significant figures seems extraordinarily precise, and all in all $20 seems a decent approximation. But no matter how many of us laugh at mass stupidity, the fact is that people do process $19.99 as costing one sawbuck and part of another one as opposed to two of them; Apple would be nuts not to take advantage of the fact that human brains are wired this way. ¶ I don't think that $20 would be misleading. But yes, we should probably skip the prices altogether. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry about the colons, guess I was too lazy to count them all and add one more :/ I do support skipping the prices altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone earlier brought up pricing that has historical significance. Not only do I agree with this, but there are three Apple prices that meets this criteria. First is the 99-cents for a song on iTunes. Jobs set this price on purpose in that the digits $.99 is eye appealing to most consumers. Apple was also the first major music seller to actually set a price on music - so much so that the $.99 has been criticized heavily throughout the industries for various reasons (the music companies are not making enough on each song, it is too expensive, etc.) And Apple took the 99-cents and even tried the same marketing methodology in Europe (99 pounds, 99 euros, etc.) In short, this price did set a mark for other music sellers to use in their pricing. And that effect is historical, and is something worthy fo documenting on Wikipedia.
The other two Apple prices: $666.66 for the Apple I (the Satan link), and $9,995 for the Apple Lisa (for some reason the price is burned into everyone's heads, although most Apple historians like myself do rattle off the price as $10,000.) Other than them, I wholeheartedly agree with the others that the price for an iPod touch does not have a place in this article. Groink (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume you meant £0.99 and €0.99, or 0.99 pounds, 0.99 euros, or 99 pence and 99 euro cents :-) Either that or you have some very dodgy sources :P Skittle (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, .99 is correct. Man, 99 euros for a track would be expensive. Groink (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I still see no point to this. Apple's recommended retail price for the products are simply Apple's recommended retail price for their products. I don't see why Wikipedia should reflect the incorrect price of £13 when it could easily reflect the correct price of £12.99. You may disagree with the company making that the price, but I'm sure a lot of people disagree with things which are reported on wikipedia and they don't go round changing them. Jackster (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starbucks

Is this service available in US only? I am not sure of its availability elsewhere in the world. Either way, i think it could be mentioned. - Jaydentaku

Read it again. Remember now, Wikipedia articles do not include every little detail - especially the NOT information. As with any other resource, always consult the cited resource that is located at the end of the sentence (in this case, Apple's web site.) Groink (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the time it took you to pontificate the matter, this edit could have been made.

I think this is quite important, not everybody (like me) is an expert when it comes to wikipedia and they, like me will operate this website as they would any other. As such, I see no harm in clarifying something, after all that is one of the purposes of wikipedia, is it not? Anyway, I take on board what you say, you are quite right. However, on balance of judgement, I belive that the impact of this addition will be proportionate to the benifits that flow from it. I see no reason then, why it cannot be there, so I have added it. I think thats fair. Jaydentaku (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Higher processor clock speed?

I've noticed, that with the latest software update for my iPod Touch, everything seems to run better and faster, more like how an iPhone runs. It seems to me that they clocked the CPU to be the same as the iPhone. Also, it was noted that all applications for the iPhone, written with the SDK would be compatible with the iPod Touch. This would not be possible if the CPU were clocked lower, as it would greatly reduce the framerate of games. I also noted that some websites, such as Facebook now run much faster, more like I would suppose it was intended to be. I am aware that original research is not permitted, but I was just putting my observations out, in case if anybody might want to research this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da-Bomb77766 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

- I think the clock speed of the iPod Touch and iPhone have always been the same? Jackster (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] incomplete

this article should have a link to the iphone sdk, and a list of changes in the firmware versions. and the upcoming firmware 2 --200.121.134.195 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want the links, add 'em. Remember, it's Wikipedia! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.109.27 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GPU

No information on the GPU. The SDK provides clear information about the GPU type and specs.

This article is very out-of-date post-SDK, so why are anon edits turned off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.226.227 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the anons constantly vandalize this article. FWIW, I don't see the logic in staying anon. I mean, I'd rather create an account and edit with it than to have the entire world see my IP address and DoS attack me because he disagreed with an edit I made. Groink (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the reason why the iPod touch is weaker in content than the iPhone is that the two devices are virtually identical regarding software development. There's already a separate article for the iPhone SDK, as well as another separate article for the firmware updates. It is also a fact that a large majority of developers are iPhone owners and not iPod touch, so logically there would be more focus on updating the content on the iPhone article than here. So rather than duplicating the same information on both the iPhone and iPod touch articles, let's just add wikilinks with these two to the SDK and firmware articles. Groink (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of the unstable

Maybe most people don't read the archived talk pages. Previously, I explained that if jailbreaking is to be covered in this article, it also needs a disclaimer of sorts to protect Wikipedia from making assumed promises in the event that a jailbreak does actually render a device unresponsive. No matter how many sources or experts say that it is impossible to brick an iPod touch, nothing in this world is absolute. That is why I threw the word "can" into the sentence. "can" indicates that it is possible. Seriously, you cannot disprove this. Again, the statement is simply to serve as a disclaimer; without the sentence, the reader will assume that there is absolutely 100-percent no risk involved in jailbreaking.

The other reason for the unstable statement is actually justified by Apple itself via the way it is handling its SDK and Software 2.0. Whenever you introduce unstable code into a device, it will crash. That's what is meant by being unstable. All of you pro-jailbreakers think that all software is stable. No, it isn't. That is why Apple introduced the App Store - to allow the Apple engineers to look at each application and validate it before it is allowed to be installed on the iPod touch. Groink (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:No disclaimers and WP:NOT#GUIDE. This statement is original research. Verifiability, not truth, is what's important in WP articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:46, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
But you haven't proved the other way as well. All you've reported is that a handful of you people haven't seen the problems. The information I provided is not original research. I said that Apple implemented the App Store/SDK system to prevent malware and other unstable software from entering the iPhone. I think Apple has more weight on the subject matter than a bunch of renegade hackers. Just because YOU haven't seen an iPhone brick does not mean it is impossible. You see the logic here? Groink (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I got news for you: I don't know shit about this device. You're talking to me as if I've got some kind of opinion on the subject. I don't. I'm an editor and I saw someone revert a removal of original research from an article. Second, the statement removed didn't say anything about the Apple SDK etc. If you'd like to add information on steps Apple took to prevent third-party software, go ahead, as long as you also add a source. But don't make a claim as to what "could" happen if customers attempt to circumvent it, unless you can provide a reliable source for that as well. In short: The statement is unsourced. If you want to add it back, provide a reference. It's just that simple. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:57, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Looking back, I didn't really address the root of the miscommunication here. Here's a slightly more descriptive argument: There's lots of things that could be true, about any topic. We don't include all "possibilities" in articles, though, unless reliable sources mention them. This device could spontaneously blow up in your pocket, but we don't include that in the article just because no one can disprove it. Even a mere possibility needs to be properly sourced. Even though you think this particular possibility is more likely, due to an assumedly educated guess based on your experience with the product, it still constitutes original research. Hope that clears things up. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:11, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point here. So other than stating the obvious, what I need to do then is find a reliable source basically saying that introducing code to a device - written either erroneously or maliciously - can in fact cause a device to malfunction or perform a function that was not the original intent. I must also prove that the methods to which Apple is using in its SDK and software delivery methodology helps minimize the possibility of these types of applications from entering into an iPhone. And, I must prove that sticking to Apple's methodology is a more reliable methodology than circumventing the system via jailbreaking. But rather than doing all of that, I'm just going to watch for the first malware to turn up and let that speak for itself. I'll wait for C-Net to cover it, and then I'll return that sentence with a cited resource. Groink (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are probably more than a few reliable sources that warn against tampering with factory-installed software in general. I think that's a great idea -- find one and add the statement in less-specific terms: "Consumers should be forewarned that tampering with the original software on any device in an undocumented manner could damage the device irreparably" (something like that -- whatever the source you find happens to say). Just make sure the statement is accurate according to the reference. You might think the rest of us are idiots for not wanting to include what you consider obvious based solely on your word, but this is how Wikipedia works. Take it up at WT:V if you like. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:53, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF look at the pik of it on the right side!!

i can see a camera reflecting back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reflection. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:32, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software Upgrade Cost

Under the section about the January Upgrade, it states that the fee went from $19.99 to $25 and it notes Footnote 13. I followed FN 13 and the Apple website still states $19.99. Can this statement be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.121.154 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the phrase "multi-touch"

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Music Quiz?

Is this "game" not present in this version of the iPod? TooLazyToLogInButNotEnoughAsToWriteThis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections?

Can anyone please explain to me why we "need" to add the sections "Comparisons to the iPhone" or whatever it was entitled and the section "Early Screen Problems". I'm sure the latter could go under a "Technical Issues" section, so that if any iPod Touch issues arise, they will go under that section, rather than having to make another. As for the comparisons, wouldn't it be fine if that goes under the general info section (ie. the first paragraph)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Color

Can we drop this ridiculousness of imagining that the whole iPod touch is black? There's more silver finish to the device than black. -JasonAQuest (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The back of the iPod touch is not silver-colored. The material is chrome. Chrome reflects all light that hits the surface, which is why the material acts as a mirror. Same thing with a mirror made of any other material... A mirror has no color. And neither does chrome. So it is indeed true that the only "surface" color on the iPod touch is black.
As another example, if you look at the iPod article, NONE of the devices mention silver as a color of the back. There is a silver iPod, but the front is colored silver. Groink (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] critism of update cost

thats missing

--83.104.170.71 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM, WP:NPOV, WP:CATALOG -- KelleyCook (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)