Talk:iPhone 6

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --125.236.241.89 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TUfan ali 112.79.59.165 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Though Apple currently has a crappy stream. We can clearly see that the iPhone 6 is here.

Has the technical data been confirmed?

A 4.7" screen with 1334x750 resolution seems a bit low, considering that the Samsung Galaxy S4, an older model that was released 16 months ago, has a 5" display with 1920x1080 resolution. Thomas.W ^talk 18:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed by Apple (http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/specs/) --Rayukk (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thickness

So, I noticed that Apple is saying the phone is 6.9 mm thick, but that this does not include the protruding camera lens. So should we say it's 6.9 mm thick, or include the lens? I think we should include the lens. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

With lens it's 7.1 mm which is the same as the iPhone 6 + --Giggett 07:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, the 6S is thicker, as is the 7, 8, XS and XR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.184 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So you agree with me? (Note, I fixed your sig. Wrong # of ~, perhaps?) --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Camera + case = flat!

Apple are being quite clever here, perhaps could be added if a legitimate source has also noticed this... They realise they can make the phone thinner but still have the camera stick-out a bit, because as a large percentage of users add a case to protect their phones (Apple's or third-party), hence the camera will be at the same or less depth than the hole in the case, so the phone will still sit flat on tables when people want to use them flat. Jimthing (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's common practise in the business, among all manufacturers, and has been so for a long time, so it's not Apple being clever, and hardly worthy of being mentioned in the article. Thomas.W ^talk 09:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Processor clock speed

The article claims that the clock speed of the processor is 1.4 GHz, but what is the source for this information? Is isn't posted on the Apple site yet. Tweisbach (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/09/iphone-6-geekbench-1-4-ghz-dual-core-a8-1gb-ram/ Is listed as a source in the Apple A8 article. --Rayukk (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Now that the two articles are merged, shouldn't the name be changed to something along the lines of "8th generation iPhones"? ---Rayukk (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia follows article naming convention, which in this case adds a number to each iPhone release.Frmorrison (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturer

The article opens with, "The iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus are iOS smartphones designed and manufactured by Apple Inc." Is that actually true? Doesn't Apple normally use Foxconn to manufacture their hardware? I'm going to add a cn to this statement, just wanted to explain why I was doing so, here. --Yamla (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right, Apple only designs the phone.Frmorrison (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the edit. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going by that standard, we should look into the actual "manufacturers" of other phones as well. For example, Motorola is listed as the manufacturer of Motorola phones, Samsung for Samsung phones, LG for LG phones, etc. I'm not sure it's fair to deny Apple manufacturing credit while continuing to give OEMs the same credit when they likely use many of the same suppliers and ODMs. 209.6.54.213 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Bendgate

Article reads: "(in reference to the "antennagate" design flaw of the iPhone 4)" whereas it's probably in reference to Watergate originally... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.221.171 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 6 page renaming

Shouldn't we rename the page as "iPhone 6 Series" since this page is talking about two distinct iPhones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanLubaki (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

NO. (see above, it's been answered already!) Jimthing (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research in Chassis Bending section

IPhone_6#Chassis_bending appears to contain some original research, particularly the "One of the Nine" blog cited. The blog cited is http://oneofthenine.com/one-of-the-nine/461-of-the-9-bent-iphone-6-video/ which does not read like a scholarly article, technical journal or other source. Rather it is a profanity-laced rant from a disgruntled iPhone 6 Plus user. I would consider his work to be original research and thus its credibility is questionable. I've not been able to find well-respected technical writers who've confirmed that "bendgate" is a widespread problem. In fact, most articles that can be found via a Google or Bing search that discuss the problem almost always have the exact same pictures, which would seem to suggest the problem affects very few people. Msawyer91 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is section about "New Features" really necessary?

It totally feels like reading an advertisement. Those information might be useful for people who looking to buy the product but as an encyclopedia I don't think we need those kind of technical information. I think it's a complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL,WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTDIR.--Chamith (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that article section has a promotional tone, needs to be rewritten like an encyclopedia. However, I am not going to revise it. Frmorrison (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lens depth WP:OR?

The WP:edit summary associated with these edits suggest they are Original Research, and thus should be reverted: [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "Build quality issues" section legit at all?

The point is that even if you believe in unsubstantiated claims by obscure sources that, for example, over 600 iPhones have bent, considering devices' sales, the issue affects only about 0.001% of manufactured devices. More importantly, whenever people try to create similar sections in Samsung Galaxy S5 and Samsung Galaxy Note 4 pages, such attempts always get rebuffed by higher-level editors, even though there are countless build quality issues with those phones, too. Taking into account Samsung's proven history of managing its branding on Internet, this blatant double standard by Wikipedia editors looks outrageous and sabotages whole concept of this encyclopaedia.

We either have to delete "Build quality issues" here (*not* an option I prefer), or allow to create similar sections in pages about competitive devices, because in reality there is just no difference between notability of any of those issues in scale of proven quantity of cases, or in scale of device's sales. As it is now, it is just a showcase of Wikipedia's being corrupted (possibly by corporate monetary interest). 37.144.67.254 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to add that most of those sections are written with sub-par grammar and syntax. If it's not a standard section in all prominent consumer electronics articles, why should the iPhone article be any different? So-called "build quality issues" would hold water if they were still being reported months down the track; all of these were reported in a short time-span, and were "tested" inconclusively by "users" on the internet (and I use the term "users" loosely because who knows what to believe on the internet?). Owleaf (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Camera's sensor being indicated as Sony's Exmor RS ISX014 makes no sense

Yes, few sources parrot each other on this, so there are whole list of three of such sources that claim that the sensor is ISX014. However, Apple says that the camera sensor has 1.5 μm size, not 1.12 μm as the mentioned model has. It should be obvious that Apple uses off the shelf sensor which is absolutely positively not ISX014, which has 1.12 μm pixels.

How we can correct this nonsense? 37.144.90.171 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (non-admin closure) Rider ranger47 ^Talk 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

---

IPhone 6 → iPhone 6 and 6 Plus – The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus jointly serve as successors to the iPhone 5C and iPhone 5S. The page title "iPhone 6" looks like there is only one model of iPhone 6, when there are two; the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Peppypoach (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Both devices are considered individual devices. There is clear indication in reliable sources that these devices are discussed either individually or are refered to together as iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. JOJ ^Hutton 16:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I would rather each model have its own article. -- Calidum 17:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yes that would be the most logical thing to do and have, but the previous consensus demanded that both devices be placed in a single article. Sigh.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, I didn't actually see that discussion (it's here for those looking). It might be time to revisit the issue again, because I find it problematic to have to distinct models lumped together. -- Calidum 17:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yes that was a previous consensus but it has been a few months, that said I still think much of the reasoning there still holds, especially after looking over the article again. PaleAqua (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Though I weakly oppose name as suggested and would prefer "iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus". ( Though I suppose a COMMONNAME argument might be made for the shorter form if the pair is usually referred to that way. ) PaleAqua (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: it seems likely that is the case. See my comment below. PaleAqua (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree with your reasoning of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus as opposed to the actual suggested name change. I didn't notice the difference until after I originally supported it. So I would go with iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no reason to use a more complicated title for this article. COMMONNAME holds out. ONR (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME follows the usage in reliable sources such as this one.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  Is there a good way objectively to tell what is the common name for the pair. Things like book ngrams are too old. I do note that bing offers "iPhone 6 and 6 plus" as a choice if I start typing up to about "iPhone 6 an", but have to get as far as "iPhone 6 and i" to get 'iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus". Google does the same. Logged out, cookies removed etc, which seems to be an okay argument against my preference. PaleAqua (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title as odd. The suggested title makes it seems as though it is about some concept of a "6 plus" and not specifically the subject of the iPhone 6 Plus. I may support a clearer title that incorporates the "6 Plus" title into the current title, but the suggested option is not the solution. Steel1943 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Split article into separate topics. iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus should have there own articles. There is two models of the phone, not one. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - no preference for "...and 6 Plus" or "...and iPhone 6 Plus". They are similar, but different, products. I don't think the article should be split, however. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both look exactly identical, I'm assuming the 6+ is basically an updated model of the 6 anyway so I'm not really seeing the point of creating another article for a phone that's next to none the same as the previous. –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Pardon me while I sound a bit snobbish, but do you have any idea about these two devices and how they were released or produced? There was no "updated model" and the iPhone 6 is not the "previous" model to the iPhone 6 Plus. These two separate devices were released at the same exact date and time. And although they seem identical to you, we go by what the sources say about them. The sources always refer to these two separate devices as the "iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 Plus". They do not refer to them as the "iPhone line", nor do the sources call them both the iPhone 6 when they are referring to both of them. Therefore the sources confirm that this article either needs to be retitled to reflect reliable sources or there needs to be a separate article for the "iPhone 6 Plus". Either way, we use the sources as our blueprint, and not our personal observations.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Split article. Proposed title sounds awkward. Should be split just as all other iPhone models have, keeping the naming consistent. Other generations of iPhones have also had different models released at the same time. The 6 plus has had problems and criticism the plain model has not, and thus are relevant only to the 6 plus -Cake~talk 21:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose article split per previous consensus at Talk:IPhone 6 Plus#Merge where consensus was formed supporting the current merge. I reviewed the discussion, and it seems as though consensus against the split was somewhat clear, and I agree with the close. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New slogan: "The two and only"

The slogan "The two and only" has been used on Apple's homepage since April 2015.Sc135 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why this page doesn't say in the "Technical problems" the screen flickering issues with the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus? Is this page controlled by Apple, so only certain things can be said?

Why this page doesn't say in the "Technical problems" the screen flickering issues with the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus? There are plenty of pictures and videos of the problem and many people that talk about it on the internet.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=iphone+6+screen+flickering&tbm=isch

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=iphone+6+screen+flickering

Is this page controlled by Apple, so only certain things can be said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ghost 546 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If this page were controlled by Apple, none of the issues with it would be in the article. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IPhone 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Article looks pretty good to start. -- numbermaniac (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The "clarification needed" tag needs to be addressed in the first section (after the lead).

Is it necessary to repeat the paragraph about the discontinuation of the 128 GB model?

It should be explained that PPI means Pixels per inch. A link to the article should suffice. SSTFlyer has done two of these, I did the final one since it was quick.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   The points I stated above need to be addressed.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The review is on hold until the notes above this list are fixed.

Passed. -- numbermaniac (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternative image of an iPhone

currently used iPhone 6 photo

Currently this black screen image is being used to illustrate the article in the intro.

alternative iPhone 6 photo

I work for a product testing organization, Consumer Reports, which has provided a few product photos to Wikipedia to check the interest in product descriptions. All of these photos are at Commons:Consumer Reports. One of the photos is this one of an iPhone 6 with the screen made blue.

Consumer Reports has a large photo studio where we model products around staged lighting. In the case of the iPhone, it seems like an amateur photo is similar in quality to a professionally created one. The one from Consumer Reports is higher resolution but I am not sure that matters.

I am posting here to get anyone's thoughts on the usefulness of this iPhone photo, and how it compares to what the article already uses. For some other product articles, I posted the professional photo into the article. For this one because of the similarity, I thought I would leave the photo here and let anyone else decide if it can be used. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lphone6@ 112.79.59.165 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Touch 'disease'

There should be a whole paragraph explaining the massive problem about touch 'disease' with iphone 6 & iPhone 6 Plus models. Sources:

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/25/iphone-touch-disease/ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37174316 http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/08/24/iphone-touch-disease-trust-apple/#885266558280 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/08/24/iphone-6-and-6-plus-phones-infected-with-touch-disease-that-make/ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/touchscreen-chip-flaw-iphone-6-plus-touch-disease http://www.macworld.com/article/3112052/software/ifixit-report-claims-touch-disease-plagues-iphone-6-and-6-plus-units-with-touchscreen-bug.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.94.78 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Added. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

'Gray bar of death'

Is this the same issue?

Libby Plummer (30 Aug 2016) "Apple sued after 'grey bar of death' renders iPhone 6 screens useless" Retrieved 17 October 2016

- 220 of ^Borg 00:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Charging issues

In 22 November 2016‎, I posted a description of charging issues in the iphone 6. The problem is that in some instances the phone would only charge when it turned off. When this problem occurs the phone doesn't recognize that the charging cable plugged in while it's on and it says "This accessory may not be supported". There are a number of possible remedies for this problem. 1.Hard Reset 2.Check Charging Accessories 3.Clean Charging Port 4.Restore iPhone If it's none of these remedies work then it's most likely a hardware problem. And, if your phone is out of warranty that is a very costly repair through Apple, and the phone can't be traded. So I think it's important to be considered as a hardware problem.

References

Needs to explain more clearly what "Plus" means

As someone unfamiliar with iPhones, I came to this article to learn what the difference is between an iPhone 6 and and iPhone 6 Plus. That information is buried far down the page. The intro does mention different screen sizes but does not actually explain that the 6 has one size while the 6 Plus has the bigger size. I don't feel that I know enough about the iPhone to edit the article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.26.234 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Alluminium misspelled

7000 series alumminium should be aluminum. Can't edit because the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.184.71 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

And at any rate it looks like the last edit was in april and no more for the last 2 years, does this really still need to be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.184.71 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit done. I'm not sure why you can't see them, but there have been a significant number of edits after April. I count more than 20, a number of which were vandalism. So, not lifting the page protection. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Coffee-cup-apple-iphone.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Environment

Our environment is our life support. It provides us our place to live, our food, health, livelihoods, culturel and identity. To prtect is to protect ourseleves. Environment is every thing that is around us. It can be living and non living thing. It includes physical, chemical and other natural forces. Living things live in their environment. They constantly interact with it and adapt themselves to contidions in their environments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaskaran19 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Section "Sales"

I think, it's unecessary that the article has an own section for sales as the sales stand in the introduction. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

PMF available

PMF available with iPhone 6 and higher

https://support.apple.com/de-de/guide/security/sec8a67fa93d/web — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:34DA:9301:C0D0:A2FA:8C1:F311 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

PMF protected management frame

Vintage phone

We should add another section or at least talk about how Apple recently announced that iPhone 6 is its vintage phone and perhaps would be made again and no longer discontinued Nlivataye (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"BendGate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BendGate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 2#BendGate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Tidbits eliminated in the article

iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus are the last iPhones to feature 1 GB of RAM.