Talk:iPhone 8

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

Battery problems[edit]

There are multiple official reports of battery swelling issues and Apple is officially investigating it. Is there any reason to hide this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.143.172.154 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By multiple, you mean 7-8? Consider making an account for yourself, as your IP is dynamic, and you are unable to reply to my messages on your talk page. Darius robin (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are only the number of official reports, there are much more cases. I have created an account. I have added a reference from the BBC that is a trusted source. Lfereneg (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darius robin:we should add the information. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darius robin: Please stop removing this information. You do not have the consensus. Lfereneg (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfereneg: And you do not have enough reports of the issue. 8 devices having problems does not mean that every device suffers from the issue (not even 0.5% of the millions of devices sold!). Darius robin (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be a problem that applies to broad number of devices. On any of the automobile articles, for example, we don't include every defect even if it's a known problem.MartinezMD (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about that Wikipedia policy. Could you reference that policy? Please, do not hide this issue until that policy is referenced. Lfereneg (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS MartinezMD (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not undue weight, maybe the section is a bit large, I propose just adding the information into another section, that will negate any concerns of undue weight. Beyond that, it is widely covered news and therefore should be included. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be added into iPhone 8#Reception124.178.109.162 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’ Any number of technology will have issues. It’s not relevant to add to the article until the issue becomes widespread. A few instances do not constitute a widespread problem. JOJ Hutton 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of issues with the phone or the number of occurrences is irrelevant. Remember Wikipedia operates on what is notable or not notable. If it has been covered by multiple large media outlets it is notable and deserves inclusion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like theres no support for inclusion just yet on the talk page as multiple users have disagreed with it's inclusion. Insisting to include this without support or consensus is edit warring. --JOJ Hutton 01:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think 8 cases out of how many sold? A million, a few million (16-18 million is the projected quarter's production)? is clearly undue weight. Notability is not the only principle WP works on. If 8 units had a scratch on them would we be including it in the article as well? What about the crackling sound they've reported? If the problem becomes more prevalent, I would alter my view on this, but at the moment I think it does not belong in the article. If we can't agree we put it to a vote and use consensus. MartinezMD (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is exactly what Wikipedia works on, we don't decide what is newsworthy or important, we just write about what the news has covered. At this point there are enough articles about the iPhome 8 battery problem to literally have its own article (beyond is falling foul on notability for one event etc)... Also you don't put it to a vote to get consensus, you seem to misunderstand the fundamentals of consensus... And if 8 units had a scratch and there were 50+ news stories including the BBC covering it, hell yes we would include it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said notability is not the only principle. I didn't say it wasn't a part of WP. I also did not say vote to get consensus. I said vote and use consensus. That is two things.MartinezMD (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition[edit]

A very small number of iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus buyers have suggested there could be an issue with the battery inside some of the devices swelling.[1] Apple confirmed it is was looking into the issue, although a spokeswoman declined to comment further when asked how many devices are affected.[2][3] As of October 7th 2017 there were only 8 reports of this defect.[4]
References
  1. ^ "Some iPhone 8 Plus owners report swelling battery problem". USA TODAY.
  2. ^ "Apple is 'looking into' why some iPhone 8 batteries are swelling". The Verge.
  3. ^ "Apple checks iPhone 8 Plus battery issue". BBC News. 9 October 2017.
  4. ^ Lomas, Natasha. "Apple is looking into reports of iPhone 8 batteries swelling". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-10-07.

This is what I propose we add to the standard Reception section, not under any special heading that would lend undue weight. I am proposing this addition because this issue has been widely covered in the media including BBC, NBC and basically every single "tech" outlet, therefore warranting it at least a small mention in the article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put in my formal disagreement with this addition. The problem first has not been verified/confirmed to be an actual problem and second, even if confirmed, currently involves only 8 units out of a potential several million units made. This makes it a premature addition and gives the problem undue weight even if confirmed IMHO. I would support a much shorter addition saying something like "early problems reported with the phone included battery problemsref, sound cracklingref, and scratchingref " as an example. I think that would reduce the bias.MartinezMD (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: So? Keep in mind, we only mention WIDESPREAD problems, doesn’t matter who or how many tech channels report it. Darius robin (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That just isn't true, we mention any problem that garners significant media attention. THink if you were a reader trying to research the iPhone 8 history, this has been a significant news happening in its history regardless of how widespread it is. Find me a Wikipedia guideline that says a problem has to be widespread to be covered. That's not how Wikipedia works, one again Wikipedia works on media coverage and notability. Same reason we have an entire article on the Apple iCar even though that has never been confirmed to even exist... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." from WP:BALASP, I don't know how much clearer the policy can be. And again, this isn't even a verified problem yet.MartinezMD (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, what number of cases is high enough so that you allow adding this fact? Lfereneg (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would take it being confirmed it is an actual problem before I would even debate a figure.MartinezMD (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6 and Lfereneg: See WP:WIDESPREAD. Although it’s about creating articles, it means exactly the same. Darius robin (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tis an essay which is opinion and I'm not suggesting we create an entire article about the issue, I'm suggesting we add a sentence to a current article... They are two different things. If I was creating an entire article about the issue that would definitely be wrong and an NPOV vio but... I'm not... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: The concept of the rule is the same, now if you see, that media excitement has considerably died down, you can no longer find any more reports of the issue. Darius robin (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are more documented reports. Please, see: http://bgr.com/2017/10/12/iphone-8-battery-swelling-problem-in-us/ Lfereneg (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfereneg: "The number of affected iPhone 8 handsets that have been reported is still statistically insignificant since millions of iPhone 8 handsets have already been sold.". Anything to say bout this? Darius robin (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Simply because a very few number of handsets have been affected does not mean there will be more. Remember the Note7 incident? Only a few devices at first, then much, much more. Also, the attention this has attracted is huge. If this was one device, then it wouldn’t matter. But now there are eight ‘’known and confirmed’’ reports. There will likely be more. The issue is notable enough for Apple to investigate, and is hence worthy of inclusion in the article.
124.178.109.162 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright calm down I forgot about the RfC template you guys were welcome to remove it yourself instead of complaining... like no need to keep going, WP:DEADHORSE guys... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: Don’t bring the Pixel 2 article into this. The issues with that are WIDESPREAD, 100+ cases reported, unlike this silly iPhone issue. Darius robin (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darius robin: (reliable) source for the 100+ cases? Also still 100 out of how many phone? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: This is crazy! So you’re waiting for every Pixel 2 to have the same issue? 8 devices is minor, 300+ devices is not minor by any means! Deserves a mention. Darius robin (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is 300 posts about it, not 300 individual devices with the issue. There are more than 8 iPhones with the issue according to latest reports though... And if I'm honest, my phone catastrophically bending is far worse than just some clicking noises imo. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: Oh lol, you’re saying that 10 people are sharing 1 phone! And the way you say 'more than 8'. Eight is 12345678. Nearly four hundred reports (and not to mention those hundreds more not bothering about posting there) is much more than '8'. Ok, I agree than the splitgate is a much more serious issue, but this thing has more reports. Find a few hundred more reports for that issue and we add it. Darius robin (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camera framerates[edit]

How does the iPhone 8 reach 1080p up to 240fps and 2160p at 60fps? How does it manage to reach these framerates? --89.21.56.82 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this isn’t a forum! We are not tech experts here. If you really want to know, visit an Apple Store. D4R1U5 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone 8 release date in Indonesia[edit]

According to the iBox website (https://ibox.co.id/), a Apple Reseller in Indonesia, the iPhone 8 will be released there on 22 December 2017, The iPhone X will also be released in the same day according to the iBox website and the iPhone X article has already been updated to that release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.33.148 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a more reliable source, such as a news article, an announcement from Apple, etc. WP:RS MartinezMD (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the iPhone 8 has no successor right now because it is still manufactured, and why would the iPhone XR, considering that it has an X in its name, be its successor? iPhone XR and XS both succeeded the IPHONE X. NiSaBo (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successor[edit]

Hi I don't know if we could consider that iPhone XS and XR are the successors of iPhone 8, for that we should read the source. But we couldn't write that iPhone X is the successor of iPhone 8 because the both have been announced on the same day, but iPhone X have been delayed. @Cards84664: continued to add unsourced information and he claim that sources are not needed. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing routine checks of links on the iPhone articles, it was tough to navigate through the succession links in the infoboxes, so I cleaned them up by listing the phones by succession date, not by the generation/design of the phone. Panam2014 claims that I need official sources to do that. Cards84664 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664: stop now. In Wikipedia all information should be sourced in the infobox or in the paragraphs. And if the others articles are not sourced, it is not an argument to ignore this. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those links did not have sources before. Your point is moot. Cards84664 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664: no it is not moot. Because, in the past Apple released only one model by year. Sourcing informations is not an option. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium, D4R1U5, Hayman30, and Mrjulesd: what do you think? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He have also added unsourced and wrong information that iPhone SE is the successor of iPhone 6s. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cards84664 have made various unsourced changes since 12 September 2018 in various articles :

Nothing of his mass edits are sourced. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HaarisK: please see here. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014 As for this page, asserting the X is a successor to 8 is pretty flaky on the grounds of logic, as both of them were announced at the same time. I think that it would make much more sense to see the X as parallel product line to the 8 for this reason, unless sources are brought forward saying otherwise.
As for the rest, Cards84664 needs to understand that while you make unsourced changes to pages, if these are challenged you have to accept that it will be removed, unless you can bring reliable sources that support your position. I'm really surprised that Cards84664 does not understand this as they have been active here for three years. To state the obvious, making a lot of unsourced edits to pages, and then edit-warring to maintain these edits, is hardly optimal. I would suggest that these changes be undone pending further discussion. Also I note that Cards84664 has been temporarily blocked over their behavior. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RFCBEFORE and discuss in the normal manner please - this content dispute is a long way from needing a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014: I agree with you, the X series is considered to be a separate product line to the 8 series, and just because the number is higher, it shouldn’t be considered a successor without being sourced. He did get blocked though. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@D4R1U5 and Mrjulesd: we know that iPhone X is not the successor of iPhone 8. But who is the successor of iPhone 8? Also I think we should create an article for iPhone X series. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking I’d say the iPhone XR should be considered the successor to the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus. One could argue that the XR and XS should both be considered as successors since they are only differentiated by their screen technology (and camera/battery, but those differentiators already existed between standard/Plus). But in my mind it is clear that by replacing the 8 and 8 Plus with the XR in its product lineup, Apple meant for the XR to be the next generation of the 8 and 8 Plus.—Zecanard (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Zecanard that the iPhone XR (or even the XS) is a far better candidate for a successor than the X. But reliable sources should be sought on this matter. I'm not sure what sources exist for this, but if they do exist then they should be referenced. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019[edit]

i have important information to explain about the iphone 8 89.240.213.135 (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"IPhone (11th generation)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone (11th generation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#IPhone (11th generation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WPA 3 available by iOS 13 and higher[edit]

See

https://support.apple.com/de-de/guide/security/sec8a67fa93d/web

Best-selling[edit]

Are there better sources for total unit sales? We say "86.3m". That comes from:

  • 17.4m (2019, iPhone 8) + 31.5m + 25.6m (2018, iPhone 8 and 8 Plus) from this source
  • 11.8m (Q3 2017, iPhone 8 and 8 Plus) from this source

That misses the iPhone 8 Plus in 2019, and the Q4 numbers in 2017. I've tagged it as original research; it was likely a best-selling phone, but we need a better source on the number. DFlhb (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tidbits eliminated in the article[edit]

iPhone 8 was the last iPhone to feature 2 GB of RAM.

iPhone 8 Plus was the last iPhone whose series of its physical size and front face design are initially based on iPhone 6 Plus.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_8&oldid=1213051626"