Talk:History of the iPhone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaquan moore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kyra05z.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Richard Wi-Afedzi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Europe missing

Isn't it kinda strange that the announcement that the iPhone will be available in France, Germany und Great Britain is missing? I'd say that that's more significant then all those hacks. --Pentiumforever 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Software Update?

I'm aware that there's a version of firmware (1.1.2) available. Should I add that to the article? --user:wiknerd(I didn't bother to sign in...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.95.16 (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No Cash payments

KelleyCook believes that including the fact that iPhones cannot be paid for with cash is irrelevant and NPOV. Please explain why you think this is irrelevant and NPOV. Many in the privacy sphere think this is pretty astounding, that US CURRENCY is not allowed to be used for a purchase. I think it is an extremely relevant point of interest for this secondary iPhone page. Not too mention, I am simply stating fact - not some rumor. Apple has acknowledged and defended their practice, and its in accordance with federal law. This article is the best place for this fact, since the main iPhone article does not mention price whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

a) Create an account instead of logging in via various Boston U IPs and more people may take your arguement seriously. b) Please go read WP:NOT especially the sections on blogs and catalogs. c) Apple's model in the U.S. is really is irrelevant and your wording and the pushing of the issue shows your NPOV on this subject. d) Reverted once again. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tried re-wording, but you seem content on erasing entries instead of attempting agreeable change. A Wikipedia account is not required to make changes to Wikipedia, FYI. As you will see, my next reference comes from The New York Times, so if my other references were not acceptable, I'm not sure how you will shoot down an international news publication. Apple's US Model is not irrelevant since this is their product, and the subsection is in regards to US. Your actions constitute NPOV by preventing information from being included from this article. This is a historical part of the iPhone, for a while they did not limit number of sales and allowed cash payments, and they have recently changed that policy. Its part of the history of the product. You will need another person to make a judgment on these changes, or I will keep on re-adding this information. 128.197.70.15 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added In addition, in the U.S. and some other countries it can only be acquired with a credit card precluding a completely anonymous purchase. with all three of your references. See, this I believe that this has all the relevant aspects of your cherished factoid without being preachy about it and thus violating WP:NPOV. And yes this issue is clearly irrelevant to the pricing controversy that resulted in Apple giving a $100 credit to all the early purchasers which is the section you tried to put it in. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have re-named the section Pricing Controversy, or something like that, but god forbid an unregistered user makes edits on an open and free encyclopedia. Thank you for creating a compromise. 128.197.70.49 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

expiration of exclusive distribution?

Currently AT&T has an iPhone exclusive in the USA. Presumably this exclusive contract with Apple will expire some day. Can anyone say when the iPhone will go non-exclusive in the USA? Funkyj (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of new iPhone pricing "controversy"

fuck the iphone is the worst phone ever.......siiiiike lol A paragraph was taken out by me.[1]. The summary was clear on the reason — it is not properly sourced WP:Crystal. The only source was a blog post, alleging AT&T will effectively raise prices by $15/month for comparable services, which makes the phone more expensive than the old one. Moreover even if this ends up being true, it was WP:NPOV as it is being called a controversy, where their is no evidence of that. Finally, WP:NOT#ACATALOG says no pricing unless it is absolutely essential. Meanwhile, it should be noted that User:JCDenton2052 violated WP:3RR by reverting my change three times in 24 hours with the non-justified summary of "rvv". -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted several reliable sources, including Engadget, Gizmodo, CNet, and Time, that mentioned that the iPhone 3G data plan would be $10 a month more expensive. Actually AT&T lists the data plan as $10 a month more expensive, and I don't know how you get more WP:RS than that. There is conflicting information about whether the previously included 200 text messages per month will still be included or cost another $5 a month. (Here's a source quoting the CEO of AT&T Mobility that text messages are no longer included.) I propose a compromise section that clarifies this point.
The controversy itself has been covered by Macworld and Yahoo, in addition to the sources I referenced in the section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Plain and simple, it is NOT a controversy and wikipedia is NOT a place to put prices. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion, it is not a controversy, but I gave several reliable sources showing that it is. Please stop quoting WP:NOTCATALOG#DIRECTORY without actually reading it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
the monthly price rise only applies to US iphone contracts. in the UK for example there is in fact a new minimum price plan which is cheaper than the old minimum price plan. there is also PAYG option in the UK. to refer to US prices as if they are universal is a broad generalization and not encyclopedic.
Well then the UK monthly price drop could be mentioned in the "European release" section as a contrast. The section reads "available in the United States exclusively on AT&T Mobility." There's no implication of universality. Additionally, US prices are mentioned throughout the "U.S. release" section. Do you propose removing them too? JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

this is not the right place for discussing this issue as it is an at&t issue, not a general iphone one.Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's under the section "U.S. release." Do you propose removing that entire section or moving it to AT&T Mobility? JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G pricing controversy

I rewrote the iPhone 3G pricing controversy section and added more reliable sources. If anyone has concerns with this version, please explain them. And please read WP:NOTCATALOG#DIRECTORY and WP:CRYSTAL if you intend to mention them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. Wikipedia is not a blog post and has rules. One is NPOV, which your prose has crossed the line defining something as a controversy, where not one of the links says it is. Secondly, WP:CRYSTAL certainly applied until AT&T made the new rates official. Next your blog sources are not authoritative.
So none of CNet, Engadget, Gizmodo, MacWorld, Time, and Yahoo! are reliable sources? I would be willing to change the title of the section to iPhone 3G pricing differences (or something else) if you feel that would be better. The rates are available on AT&T's website. How much more official can you get? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But the most important thing is that you can't mention prices without a damn good reason. Notice how no where else in Wikipedia are the data plan rates mentioned. So a shift in pricing model of those data plans is not a good enough reason. Though I'll agree with you that the change in the model could be argued to be encyclopedic so I put that in (note that this was only after those rates became official). And the former controversy was ONLY encyclopedic because Steve Jobs formerly apologized to his early adopters and Apple gave coupons out to them. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I already quoted the relevant parts of WP:NOTCATALOG#DIRECTORY. If the prices I mentioned aren't allowed, then you had better remove the other prices from the article for the same reason. What makes you the final arbiter of what is encyclopedic or not? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since third opinion is asked i'll try my 2 cents. It appears to me that in a rash to get as much information in Wiki as possible, situations like this are no wonder. However, between "encyclopedic style" and "notability", individal pricing of an individual item probably does not belong hee at all, unless, as per KelleyCook, it is a matter of notable historic event. First argument would be, if we try to write about every single covered-up price increase going on around the world, we'l lprobably need another Wiki just for that, the size no smaller then this one. Secondly, I beg you to keep in mind, we are writing an encyclopedia here, that being a fixed, verified and set in stone knowlege (essetially, even if in wiki's case that by definition of free editing will never finally happen). Now, if we add an "actual price list" section to it, we're essentially dooming ourselves to do some of company's work, that being keeping these pricess updated. or alternatively the page gets that "bloggy" topic-of-the-day look that seem to put many a caring editors on alert. Third argument will more or less quote kelley: price increase in tiself does not constitute "controversy" All this said, I suggest the paragraph of iPhone 3g pricing removed from the article. I also express a dearest hope that JCDenton will both keep contributing to Wiki and fully understand that with greater doing comes greater amount of troubles and fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.138.103 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This debate was listed at WP:Third Opinion for independent editor review. As this debate has already been listed for RfC (see below), the WP:3O request has been supercedeed and is no longer appropriate. Jim Miller (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring on iPhone pricing

I have protected the article for 24 hours due to a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. Please try to reach a consensus about how to handle iPhone pricing. If the edit war resumes, the case may come back to the 3RR noticeboard and sanctions may occur at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G pricing controversy dispute

I added a section on the iPhone 3G pricing controversy. The upcoming iPhone 3G will be $200 cheaper up front (in the United States). However, the data plan will be $10 a month more. This is from the AT&T website. The SMS plan may be $5 a month more. This is from an interview Om Malik (a respected blogger) conducted with Ralph de la Vega (CEO of AT&T Mobility). Therefore, over the course of the required two year contract, the iPhone 3G will actually be more expensive. This has been covered by several news sources, including CNet, Engadget, Gizmodo, MacWorld, Time, and Yahoo!.

User:KelleyCook has continually deleted the section for various reasons, which I feel I have addressed. He has referenced Wikipedia:NOTCATALOG#DIRECTORY. However, that policy reads "Sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention." The prices are sourced (from the AT&T website and the CEO of AT&T Mobility) and I feel that there is a justifiable reason for their inclusion (the well documented pricing controversy). Additionally, prices are mentioned in two other sections of this page, yet KelleyCook is not calling for their removal. He has also referenced Wikipedia:Crystal#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. However, I feel that given the sources, the prices are verifiable. I suppose that AT&T could change the prices before release, but by that same reasoning, much of the information on the iPhone 3G would have to be removed from iPhone because it could change before release. Finally, he has mentioned that controversy is not mentioned in any of the sources. I would respond by saying that I'm open for suggestions for an alternate title (maybe iPhone 3G pricing differences?). Additionally, I have seen controversy sections in other articles where the sources criticize an action or policy, but don't explicitly label it a controversy. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me make a comment on the use of the word "controversy" in this article. Reading through the various definitions of the term, I agree with KelleyCook that regardless of the way-overuse of the term elsewhere on the blogs and the media, the pricing is in no way a controversy. First off, a controversy is more of a conflict of opinion between two parties. Preferring ketchup over mustard on a hot dog is not a controversy. Setting a high price on a piece of electronics, or dropping the price is also not controversial. People being angry over pricing of any kind is not a matter of controversy. If someone can come up with a "let's screw the consumers" memo from Apple, then sure it would turn into a controversial subject. But a simple common marketing practice of selling a product at a high price and then later drop it based on some form of marketing trend model is NOT controversial. Call it what it is: People bought into the iPhone too soon. That's what happens when you want to be the first kid on the block to have the iPhone.
Well then the section Price drop controversy should be renamed too. Even if not a controversy, the iPhone 3G price difference is notable as per the sources that I have referenced. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Second, editors of Wikipedia should never allow outside sources to dictate the flow of any article. As KelleyCook pointed out, many of the cited references are blogs. Unfortunately, blogs are becoming a more and more popular form of journalistic writing on news sites. The purpose of blogging on news sites such as C-Net and even CNN's iReport is to allow the writer to break journalistic barriers that would otherwise prevent the report from being posted, and report the news with a "built-in excuse" for any incorrect statements made in the report (i.e. it is a blog, so mistakes and opinions are allowed.) We can't just quote on-line sources simply because of the integrity of the domain name in the URL. We must grade each and every cited resource to make sure the context falls under traditional journalistic writing, and not a blog or other POV-written article. Groink (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to your first sentence, you should read WP:OR. Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of blogs on news sites. These "blogs" are written by paid staff of CNET, CNN, etc. They are only titled blogs as an attempt by more traditional media to respond to new media on the internet. For the purposes of WP:RS, these aren't even blogs. The issues with blogs are outlined here: Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F. These references aren't self-published or pseudonymous. I seriously doubt that CNET, CNN, etc have no oversight of the articles that I referenced. If their staff writers posted content that is libelous or counter-factual, their employers would come under as much criticism as if it had been posted in a URL without "blog". Can you cite a policy stating that each source must be evaluated? Can you cite a policy stating that not only Wikipedia entries, but all sources must be written from a neutral POV? Finally, which sources do you specifically have issues with? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You're telling me that you do not evaluate every reference you use in your editing? I don't even need a fricking Wikipedia guideline to tell me that! Anyone who had to write a term paper in school was told to verify their sources, and to weigh the validity of the source. In your logic, a reader who sees that [#] footnote mark will assume that the the sentence is factual. That is total baloney! It is the responsibility of every reader to question every statement made in a Wikipedia article. We as editors must apply common Term Paper 101 practices to give the reader confidence that if they see that [#] footnote mark, they do not have to re-check the reference to make sure the statement made is in fact linked to a verified source. But because editors like yourself do not evaluate your sources before applying them to Wikipedia, the references themselves are now in question. As for blogging, the way you defined blogging sounds like blogging is synonymous with every other form of journalistic writing. It isn't. If it was, then we wouldn't have even invented the "blog" term. And it isn't just me who believes in my theory behind blogging on news sites; one or more writers on C-Net made comments like mine in the comments section of their own blogs. If you took the blog out of news, then there would be a major slowdown of the delivery of time-sensitive newswriting. Blogging allows news companies to be more competitive in the time-sensitive news delivery process. By declaring an entire section of a news site to blogging, any article posted in the section can bypass the editor's desk. C-Net practices this time and time again. And last, my view behind this pricing issue is not to allow this article to continue this public outrage of pricing and the viral logic that it is a controversy. Most of us know that if we go to a McDonald's and purchase food on a ala-carte basis, it comes out more price effective than buying complete meals. But we don't start flaming the franchise for pushing the complete meals because they're more expensive (and BTW that isn't controversial either.) And it isn't even Apple setting the plans! Like the 300-page bill issue (which wasn't a controversy), Apple had nothing to do with it. All Apple does is make the iPhone and allow resellers to market/package it whichever way they want - within means of course (no unlocking, etc.) Again, no viral reporting!!!!!! And again, it isn't Wikipedia guidelines that dictate that - it is basic term paper writing practice. Groink (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I check to see if an article is from what I believe to be a reliable source (such as CNet, CNN, etc). Then I read the article. I don't fact check every claim made in every article, because that is the job of the editorial staff of CNet, CNN, etc. Could you cite the Wikipedia policy that only allows primary sources? I do question statements in Wikipedia articles, but it would be madness for me to question every statement made in what I consider to be a reliable source. I didn't define blogging in general. I explained what "blogs" produced by traditional media are, and then contrasted them with the definition of blog in Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F. If you disagree with the definition of blog at that policy page, start a discussion there to change it. Finally, what specific issues do you have with the articles that I referenced? Otherwise this just belongs on the talk page for WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the pricing, you are arguing that Wikipedia should shape public opinion, which is antithetical to the philosophies behind Wikipedia. Do you have any references showing that AT&T alone and without any input from Apple sets iPhone price plans? Apple has been shown to have a great deal of leverage over AT&T and I find it hard to believe that it would not extend to pricing. And even if your point is valid, that would only mean that the iPhone 3G pricing controversy should be moved to At&t_mobility#iPhone. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the pricing information and issues should be moved to At&t_mobility#iPhone. As much as you asking to provide references saying that Apple has control over pricing in another company's contracts, I can turn around and ask the reverse. This is why I don't play the "who can come up with a Wikipedia policy for _________" game like other editors do. As long as I treat my edits and see the "big picture" like I do with any other form of term or research paper writing I'm involved with, I know I'm doing the right thing. Here, I have one policy to quote ya.... WP:IGNORE. Groink (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that way, then you need to create a proposal to merge those sections into At&t_mobility#iPhone and try to gain consensus. It's fact that Apple decided to decrease the price of the iPhone. It's fact that Apple decided the maximum global price of the iPhone 3G. It's fact that Apple has leverage over AT&T. So the burden of proof for the claim that AT&T decides iPhone plan pricing without any input from Apple is on you. I asked you for Wikipedia policies because that is how Wikipedia is run, not by your opinions (unless you're a sock puppet of Jimbo Wales). The difference between Wikipedia and your term and research papers is that you don't own Wikipedia articles. Consensus must be reached among several editors, and Wikipedia policies help lead to that consensus. You should read Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means. Specifically, "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche." JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here... I see that there are two different "controversy" sections. One section is regarding the price cut that occurred soon after the release of the original iPhone. The second section is regarding the lower price of the 3G iPhone in comparison to the original one, and the simultaneous increase in service price. The first section does seem justifiable as it was a true controversy, there was a lot of complaining from early purchasers who felt like they were taken advantage of. The second section, however, doesn't have anything controversial in it. The prices are different, yes, but who is complaining? Where is the public outcry, the accusations...? Some bloggers think that the price difference is interesting enough to talk about, but it really hasn't been newsworthy. All that the section is really doing is explaining how Apple is trying a different sales strategy than before. It doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the article. -- Atamachat 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the original prices are not notable so they should be removed too. The section could be renamed iPhone 3G pricing changes, iPhone 3G pricing differences, or just iPhone 3G pricing. Several journalists and bloggers have reacted negatively to the pricing changes and there has been an outcry on various forums (which, sadly are not WP:RS). If the US release of the iPhone 3G comes to pass without any outcry over pricing from WP:RS, I would agree with removing all pricing information from this article (but not selectively removing my contributions). JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the prices should be removed in the article where they aren't appropriate, which looks to me to be everywhere outside of the "Price drop controversy" section (in that section they are necessary to help explain the controversy). We shouldn't wait to see if there is an outcry over pricing before removing information about the 3G price changes, because if we assume there will be a controversy that is both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. If we remove it now and then add information later when it does become a controversy though, that's fine (see WP:NTEMP). I'm sorry by the way about linking all these policies, I'm not just quoting them for you but to make my argument clearer for everyone contributing or reading this RFC. And of course we shouldn't selectively remove your contributions, you're far from a vandal. :) -- Atamachat 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How high is the bar for notability? Do enraged iPhone fans have to be throwing hammers at Apple and AT&T stores on July 11? What kind of outcry was there at the first controversy, other than people ranting on forums? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The bar should be higher than the opinion of two bloggers not associated with major media outlets, which is all that is being shown now. The New York Times declared "IPhone Owners Crying Foul Over Price Cut" with the original iPhone, that's a pretty good indication that it was more than a few people ranting on forums. Find something even close to that and I think we can start considering that this is a "controversy". -- Atamachat 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've given references to a lot more than "two bloggers not associated with major media outlets" so that's just a strawman. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No you haven't. I've looked at all of the references you've given for the iPhone 3G section, and among them the only two sources that give a hint at any sort of dissatisfaction with the price change is Gizmodo and Tidbit. Where else is anyone declaring that there is a problem with the price change? -- Atamachat 15:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Carey Greenberg-Berger of the Consumerist writes, "The new iPhone is not more affordable. Anyone deceived by Apple's lower price point is going to get a nasty wake-up call when they read their first bill."[2] Suzanne Choney of MSNBC quotes a Current Analysis report that states "the additional $10 may be an annoyance" and writes that "Some of that excitement may be offset by the reality of the new monthly service plan."[3] Etan Horowitz of the Orlando Sentinel writes "There's already some backlash about the plan pricing going up and I imagine people would be upset if the new plans didn't include text messages."[4] Adam C. Engst of TidBITS writes "The Reality Distortion Field is starting to wear off, and I'm getting a bad feeling about the iPhone 3G. Don't get me wrong - my complaint isn't about the iPhone 3G itself or how much it costs, but about how much more it will end up costing U.S. customers than the original iPhone thanks to higher monthly fees, and how Apple and AT&T are hiding that price increase from potential customers."[5] MG Siegler of VentureBeat writes "I can’t begin to tell you the number of emails and comments I’ve received since yesterday from people saying that the $10-a-month price increase in the data plan for the iPhone 3G will actually make the device more expensive over the course of its life."[6] He labels the dropping of 200 included text messages "a rip-off of epic proportions."[7] JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Aside from a controversy, the deception in the statement "twice as fast at half the price" may be notable. Michael J. Miller of PC Magazine labels the price drop a "misconception".[8] Saul Hansell of the New York Times writes "But we should call it an iPhone price increase, not a cut."[9] Farhad Manjoo of Salon writes "But still, it's a price increase. If you found the old iPhone too expensive, don't be fooled into thinking the new one's any cheaper."[10] Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZDNet writes "Apple’s tag-line for the iPhone 3G is “Twice as fast. Half the price.” However, if you take a closer look at the numbers you’ll see that the new iPhone works out at $40 dearer than the current model."[11] JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose (and have enacted) a very simple solution: Call the section "iPhone 3G pricing". That is an appropriate title for the content that we have. Yes, it's a price increase, and people never like price increases, but it is a more powerful product with faster service than its predecessor. Warren -talk- 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that solution is that such a section is just informing people of how much the iPhone 3G costs, which again violates WP:NOTDIR. This isn't a price catalog. -- Atamachat 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that iPhone 3G pricing is a better title, since there is not really a controversy. I wouldn't insist that all prices be stamped out of the article, but I think that a much shorter version of this paragraph would still be acceptable. The point about the pricing of SMS messages sounds very minor to me. You could even just say that there will be a slight net increase in price over the length of a two-year contract in the United States compared to the original iPhone. I hope we are not headed towards a complete table of the cost of the iPhone in every country in the world. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The point of the SMS messages not being included is that it costs $120 more over the term of the mandatory two year contract. This is a non-insignificant sum compared to the up-front cost of the iPhone 3G. Combined with the data price increase, the iPhone 3G is significantly more expensive--which runs contrary to Apple's claim of "twice as fast at half the price." I think the debate now is over where the bar is set for controversy. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding SMS, I have seen no indication whether SMS was dropped entirely, or is now on the per use basis (15 cents on my AT&T non-iPhone) instead of 200 included messages. The latter is no big deal and it would be fuzzy math to put that number back in (the numbers show that iPhone users in aggregate don't use SMS nearly as much as other cell phone users, but use the internet and email much more than other phone users).
Gregg Keizer of Computerworld writes "T&T's being tight-lipped, officially speaking, but the CEO of the behemoth's wireless division, AT&T Mobility LLC, spilled some beans earlier this week. In an interview posted on GigaOm, Ralph de la Vega said text messages were no longer part of the deal. "The SMS messages are not bundled anymore, and you pay for what you want," de la Vega told Om Malik. Ouch."[12]Suzanne Choney of MSNBC writes "It is not clear yet whether text messaging will be part of that cost, or an add-on. “That’s part of the pricing we’ll get into more detail about as we get closer to launch date,” said Mark A. Seigel, executive director of media relations for AT&T Mobility. “That’s not something we’ve discussed yet.”"[13] Etan Horowitz of the Orlando Sentinel writes "When I asked [AT&T spokeswoman Gretchen] Schultz if the "unlimited data" plan for the iPhone 3G will include text messages, she couldn't say, and said AT&T will release more details in the coming weeks. This is strange and makes me wonder if AT&T will have an additional charge for text messaging."[14] Adam C. Engst of TidBITs writes "The iPhone 3G's SMS rate details aren't yet disclosed, and AT&T's live chat customer assistance person was either unwilling or unable to reveal how much they'd be. An AT&T spokesperson told us that the company would discuss the specifics of SMS pricing closer to the iPhone 3G release date."[15] If AT&T were continuing to offer the 200 free text messages or were convinced that it would not cause controversy, why would they not be up-front about it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, as I mentioned in the summary where I tried to correct the article, none of these so called definitive sources takes into account NPV which you absolutely have to do. If you don't think that matters, please send me $230 today and I will gladly send you $10 each month for the next 24 months. As a hint for this actual example the IRR of a $190 up front followed by annuity 23@$10 = 19.86%, which is, unsurprisingly, just about the same as a credit card interest rate. And knowing that fact is not WP:OR that is an editor who realizes that the sources either don't know what they are talking about or are just pushing an issue. On the other hand, if I put my simple and completely factual knowledge in the article would be both OR and NPOV. So until we can find a real source, it is better to leave it out entirely. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine. If you find a source that comes to the same conclusion as you, add it to the section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You need to establish that a controversy exists at all with reliable sources. Right now your claims are original research. -- Atamachat 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Show me what claims I've made that are OR. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You've called it a controversy without giving a reliable source to back that up, by definition it's original research. -- Atamachat 15:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Atama, I don't think WP:NOT applies here, since there is a discussion about the significant price drop, which has attracted a lot of media attention, both because of the drop, and because of the increase in monthly costs. The inclusion of pricing information needs to be justified, according to policy, and that has been established with the content we have now. Warren -talk- 01:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Significant how? Remember that Wikipedia is not a news service, right now the very limited mention this price change is receiving in the media is due only to the fact that it is currently a popular device, and people will want to buy the new version. A short burst of news about the price difference does not equate notability. And your "justification" for including information about the price change is that it's needed for content talking about how... The price has changed? What justification is that? We don't need to include every insignificant detail about the iPhone's history in this article. -- Atamachat 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It's significant because just about every news service that covered the 3G iPhone's release made prominent mention of the pricing. PC World's article is titled Apple Upgrades iPhone to 3G; Slashes Price. TIME Magazine has an article titled iPhone 3G Price to Hurt AT&T Profit. MacNN: Piper: iPhone 3G price cut deep, to affect revenues. Houston Chronicle: The Asterisk on the 3G iPhone's Price Tag. Wired: WWDC Keynote: Steve Jobs Announces a $200, 3G iPhone. Ars Technica: iPhone 3G: real GPS, $199, in stores in 22 countries July 11.
I could carry on like this for quite a while -- there are a lot of stories. I'm not even quoting articles -- these are the names of the articles from major news publications. The price has been getting as much attention as the 3G capabilities. If you consider yourself to be a good Wikipedian, then you cannot choose to ignore this because you take offense to seeing the occasional dollar sign in the encyclopedia.
Also, you're really straining your point by trying to argue the disinclusion of information about the pricing aspect of the iPhone on the basis that it is "currently a popular device". The Commodore 64 was a popular device in the mid to late 1980s, and that article includes (and will always include) the price because it was a significant part of its success and importance. The article on the Bugatti Veyron mentions its price, which is almost always mentioned in conjunction with the car, mainly because it is very nearly the most expensive road-legal car in the world. WP:NOT discourages the use of Wikipedia as a sales catalog, yes, but when the cost is a significant part of the story, as reported by our sources, then we need to cover it. Warren -talk- 07:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle here, which is why I tried to craft the paragraph to say that AT&T was subsidizing the upfront half cost of the phone looking to make it back up on the back end. Please look at my last edit:[16]
With the July 11 2008 release of the iPhone 3G, Apple and AT&T changed the U.S. pricing model from the previous generation. Following the de facto model for mobile phone service in the United States, AT&T will subsidize a sizable portion of the upfront cost for the iPhone 3G followed by charging a moderately higher monthly fees over a minimum two year contract.<ref>http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/services/serviceDetails.jsp?LOSGId=&skuId=sku1160053&catId=cat1470003</ref>

Combining the iPhone and iPhone history articles

The separation of the articles of the iPhone and it's history prove confusing for the new users of the site and/or users that aren't familiar with the iPhone. Combining both articles into the single article "iPhone" would help simplify the process for newcomers to learn about the iPhone. If anyone is enthusiastic about doing this, it would be greatly appreciated by future users. How789 (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The historical portion was broken away from the main article for a reason. See WP:LENGTH. According to the guideline, an article reaching 60KB should be divided or edited of unwanted content. Combining the two articles would break the 100KB mark, which is way too much for just one article. The iPhone article was becoming very large in both page length and byte size. Finding everything on one page may be easy for some people. But the length does cause issues, such as reader fatique, and the reader becoming overwhelmed with so much information that we'd actually lose readers. Groink (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that How789 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G Advertising Information

The Anus ads have a whole new method, and a whole new song. Can someone care to add to the "Advertising" section of this article?

Make note:

  • New song
  • White background, instead of black.
  • Back of the iPhone 3G device is shown before the TV Commercial's main presentation.

Thanks! --219.77.76.32 (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is Pakistan

Where is Pakistan. The name of Pakistan is not included in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal2009 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia's Telkomsel

According to an SMS sent to Telkomsel customers, iPhone will be available in Indonesia soon. I will find a source to back this up in English/translated to English. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here they are: [17] [18] w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

iPhone in Saudi Arabia

Mobily has officialy stated that it will provide the iPhone in Saudi Arabia here is a link to its website http://www.mobily.com.sa/iphone you should add it to the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.198.133 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs more information on iPhone 3G and 3GS

When reading this article I found that it fell short of providing information about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. I feel that this should be remedied sometime soon. Killr 00:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apple lost iPhone prototype

We need to add this story somehow as it's all over the blogsphare and represent very important event in Apple time line, Apple lost what it's almost confirmed to be next gen iPhone (named iPhone4 or iPhoneHD), the story trace back to Gray Powell -Apple Software Engineer- who lost the phone in Gourmet Haus Staudt, then the phone found it way to number of blog site before Gizmodo reveal it's bought the device for $5k, and yesterday they post that they got it and show pictures and video of the phone, receiving millions of hits in return.

Ref ([19], [20], [21], [22]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayani (talk • contribs) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Jobs was still working for Apple in 1981!

In the section on Advertising, it says, "The commercial was created by TBWA\Chiat\Day, Apple's ad agency since CEO Steve Jobs' return to the company in 1981." This cannot be correct because at this time, Jobs was still head of Apple and even the Lisa was still a ghost of a dream, never mind even Macintosh. I mean, like, yeah, the Apple 2E+ and then iPhone, nothing happened between then, right? Okay, anyway, I'd change the article, but I don't recall when Jobs returned to Apple in the late 90's or early 00's and told everyone that NeXT was the way to go and it was time to cancel all those clones and trash OS9 for a Berkley BSD-based kernel and UNIX-like OS that became Darwin and then OS X.

Anyway, could someone please fix this?

--TimeHorse (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the date to 1998. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 20:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4

iPhone 4 says to look here for its history, but it isn't mentioned here. Should it be added here, or subtracted there? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No section On Designer?

That's odd, amazingly there doesn't seem to be any mention of the designer, I can only assume that's deliberate? Twobells (talk)

Should the Unlocking and other history be extended to cover recent iPhone's?

It looks like the unlocking history stops in late 2008... Should the unlocking section of the main article be extended to cover recent news? (Yosofun (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC))

iPhone 5 rumours

there are rumors going around that the iPhone 5 will be a GSM/CDMA hybrid compatible with GSM neteorks around the world. I think this should be included in the article, but not before thbhey're confirmed by a reliable (or at least semi-reliable) source. Information from any source that is anything but reliable will be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpector (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Date mistake

"In April 1900 at the "All Things Digital" executive conference, Jobs" - 1900, surely not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Who wrote 1900? Keysinger (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"iPhone" trademark dispute

Interesting that this article is completely devoid of the battle over the iPhone name.

etc. CaribDigita (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See, instead, IPhone#Intellectual property, where it is mentioned. Guy Harris (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Using "the"

Hello, everyone

While the use of articles in English can sometimes be tricky, I expect any editor should know the basic rules of it. For the starter, you can study WP:THE and the Grammar Girl article "When to Use Articles Before Nouns". For a more thorough reading, you can consult a grammar book like Advanced Grammar in Use chapters 44 through 47 or Modern English: A Practical Reference Guide chapter 7.

The basic rule is: Proper nouns, definite names and plural nouns do not need a definite article. So, most of the times, it is "iPhone" not "the iPhone".

There are two exceptions:

  1. When "iPhone" is not the core noun, and so "the" applies to the core noun that appears after "iPhone. e.g. "the iPhone line of smartphones". The core here is "the line of smartphones".
  2. When metonymical deletion occurs, i.e. "the iPhone" really stands for "the iPhone device". e.g. "My father bought us three iPhones. One of them stopped working that night. We couldn't make it work so we returned the iPhone for repairs." Note that this is colloquial speech and I am not sure if it is suitable for written articles. Also, this applies only to computer hardware; computer software are totally exempt from this rule. e.g you never hear "Red Alerts"; it is always two copies of Red Alert.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

'the iPhone' with the definite article is correct, becuse 'Phone' is a noun, and the letter 'i' its property: "the i Phone". Whereas iPhone SE certainly goes without the definite article, as would iPhone 4S, as these are noun+number (model number or other such signifier). -Mardus /talk 04:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The following short paragraph doesn't make much sense as it is currently written. If someone would like to fix it and return it to the article, here it is. Deli nk (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

During March 1995, Internet This History Broadcast, the iPhone was originally introduced, and trademarked to InfoGear however InfoGear was sold and Linksys acquired InfoGear, Linksys was acquired by Cisco, and Cisco filed a lawsuit against Apple for copyright infringement. The lawsuit was resolved on February the 21, 2007.
@Deli nk: I think I may know what some of the confusing parts should be changed to. My idea of what it might be with some of the problems fixed is stated below. I hope this helps! Noah Kastin (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Internet This History Broadcast, in March 1995, the iPhone was introduced and trademarked by InfoGear. Through a series of acquisitions, InfoGear was acquired by Cisco, who filed a lawsuit against Apple for copyright infringement. The lawsuit was resolved on February 21, 2007.
@Noah Kastin: That clarifies things a bit. But I think there needs to be an additional statement regarding the fact that the "iPhone" product from InfoGear has nothing to do with Apple's iPhone products, other than name. Deli nk (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information! With that in mind, here's another draft of the paragraph. Hopefully, this draft will help too! Noah Kastin (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Internet This History Broadcast, an unrelated product, also called iPhone, was introduced and trademarked by InfoGear in March 1995. (Relevant time stamp to show that this is skipping to now, such as "After Apple introduced its iPhone" if relevant), Cisco, which now owned InfoGear, filed a lawsuit against Apple for copyright infringement. The lawsuit was resolved on February 21, 2007.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of iPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


History of iPhones → History of the iPhone – Original argument against this was per WP:THE, however this only applies to "The" being at the start of an article name. "The" being in the middle of this article name makes the most grammatical sense. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 05:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. It feels like a more natural title to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to History of the first iPhone or History of early iPhones? There have been a lot of iPhones; this article seems to only be about the first ones. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem like a good idea (at least in my opinion). By moving it to History of the iPhone, emphasis on the, it makes it pretty clear that we're talking of the original one. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The iPhone seems more natural than iPhones. Somehow unable to think of it in the plural. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Early history of the iPhone. Just from the title it would appear that the article would extend to present, so it is rather WP:ASTONISHing that it only goes up to 2010. I recommend adding "early" to make it more obvious. (To be clear, I definitely prefer History of the iPhone over History of iPhones, though neither is ideal.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Much clearer title. This isn't the history of some particular iPhones, it's the history of the iPhone as a concept. MrAureliusRTalk! 22:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because it is cleaner. However, the article scope needs to be clear so it isn't confused that this article is about the first iPhone and it is about the series of iPhones. It looks like it is only discussing the development of the iPhone as a concept. If the title is going to be at History of the iPhone then this article needs to be expanded to talk about all the iPhones' development until the present day. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposed title is not consistent with the scope. I am by all means supportive of the proposed title, but the scope of the article only talks about the development of the iPhone(s) until 2010. Is this article about the development of the iPhone (the first iPhone and its development) or the iPhone (as in the development as the iPhone as a series of models until the present day)? The scope needs to be fixed. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead section

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article content. Instead, the lead section in this article is written as a prelude to the remainder of it. It describes only events up to 2006. None of those events are discussed in the article body, which describes only what happened after 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof see the move discussion above. Several editors have pointed inconsistencies with the article scope. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_iPhone/Archive_1&oldid=1136798914"