Talk:iPod/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"The Beat Goes On" Conference

Someone sohuld do make something about how the name of the "Beat Goes On" conference fueled the rumors that The Beatles' catalog will be added to the iTunes Store, because the name of the conference is also the last name of an article about the Beatles' break-up. Moreno Valley User (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanted: Feature-set Comparison Table

I would like to see an undocumented feature-set comparison table of the various Pixo OS based iPods (As of this writing, all iPods but the Touch and the iPhones appear to be Pixo OS based.). For example, I am trying to determine which models (and corresponding OS revisions) support the Skip Count feature of iTunes 7. Another example is that 1G and 2G iPods did not support On-The-Go playlists. Chris Murphy (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That has the potential to get too detailed. Just document it in the respective generation section for the respective iPods Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical mediawiki question about the lower case i

Sorry this isn't about iPods but I could use technical assistance on another article and this looked like a possible source of expertise. I'm trying to cleanup the article Coffeeheaven which should not start with a capital C. But the mediawiki software won't let me move the article to coffeeheaven. I have no idea how to get it to show it as lower case as it does here at the top of the page with the lower case i in iPod. Help appreciated. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just add {{Lowercase}} to the top of the article and talk page. -- Vary | Talk 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight that's pretty obvious I should have guessed! Thank you. -- SiobhanHansa 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually lowercase, not Lowercase. Lady Galaxy 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The ipod is the hottest mp3 on the market of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.12.101 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

are we allowed to add external links?

hi my name is glenn and i have been recenlty trying to add an external link to th ipod page on an article which talks about the dark side of the apple iPod. the moderator Esanchez7587 kept on reporting me as Spam.

i feel this is highly unfair as the article is highly informative and it is based on facts. if you wish to read it the address is http://glennforever.com/webarticles/iPoddarkside.htm

i would deeply apprecite your help and that is why i am posting the link here before posting it on the main page

Thankyou 210.214.80.124 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. See Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Spam.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"mcdonalds" vandalism in introduction

"Apple focused its development on the iPod's unique user interface and its ease of use, rather than on mcdonalds."

Could anyone please revert to the last edit before this vandalism was inserted? Some proofreading for further discreet vandalism like that would also be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.72.122 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy

I spent over 3 hours trying to convey my point across about how iPods make great self defense weapons. And all you WM's (Wiki Masters) do is crush my dreams and ruin perfectly good opportunities for regular people to protect themselves. How is it illogical to tape an iPod to a bomb or gun for stylish self defense? This is absurd. I believe I should be able to express perfectly good uses for iPods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.13.233 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have so much time and writing skills available, why not put them to good use? There are many articles in Wikiopedia that could use some improvement. From proofreading to researching a subject to fill in missing information, there are many constructive ways to contribute. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For instance, Tcncv's responses to other's posts. See "Wikiopedia." dwilczyn (dwilczyn|talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam removal

Just wanted a note made that I edited the iPod article to remove spam that was posed at the top. --RyanKlein (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of "classic"

(I'm new, please be gentle)

Many places in this article (and others), "classic" is used for iPods which are not the mini, nano, touch or iPhone. Also in this article, the classic is called the 6th generation.

"fifth generation iPod classic"

Neither of these are really correct. The classic (and the only classic) is the latest 80GB and 160GB iPods. There is no 5th gen classic The previous iPods are not "classics".

In the table of models, next to the sixth gen iPod (which is incorrect), it states "Introduced the "classic" suffix." It's not a suffix, it's the correct name of the latest version of the iPod.

Yeah, I think Apple messed up by not sticking with a decent model name by using "iPod with clickwheel", "iPod with color display", "5th gen iPod with video", etc. but simply slapping "classic" on all iPods in wikipedia is not correct. I see there has been some previous discussion of this.

Chrisca123 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5.5 Generation iPod

In the entry in the table for the 5th generation iPod, it makes mention that a later version had a "search" feature and is sometimes called a 5.5 generation iPod. That '5.5' generation iPod also had a brighter screen as well as improved battery life.

It is referenced in this CNet article:

http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/apple-ipod-fifth-generation/4505-6490_7-32069546.html

I don't have an account so I can't add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.135.181 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Docking Compatabilty

The Post on the Nano, Second Generation (2006), indicated a change in the 4 pin connector. I have a 2nd generation Nano and need (please) to know if a docking connector in my car that works with this Nano will be compatible with a 5.5 (2006) Generation Video? Please, please help me. Way too much time and money spent without an answer. Thanks, Eric67.174.127.130 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT Machete97 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello People (reccomendaytions)

Geez ipod nano and video and classic have all been good for people i know so if you are thinking of getting one i would highly recommend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.62.213 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you were trying to help people, and yes the iPod is a great media player, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there's no need to have these comments on talk pages. Just a bit of good practice, no offence meant. Semicolons (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

List of iPods

The article mentions the nano, touch, classic and shuffle.
Should the iPhone be included? It has iPod capabilities, an icon labelled "iPod" on the home screen, yet Apple gives it a separate section on their website. Let me know what you think.
Semicolons (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

nowhere in this article is a mentioning of ipodlinux to be found

nowhere in this article is a mentioning of ipodlinux to be found. Please fix this. Thanks;

81.246.175.32 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(BAD)^STYLIZATION

I have to say, I'm not a fan of the rendering of Product Red in the article as (PRODUCT)^RED. There's probably some precedent for it in the Wiki style guide, but I'm not particularly familiar with it. I think it should just be rendered as normal words rather than in the same gimmicky way the Product Red wordmark is.203.87.6.149 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind as to add the image "ipodlineup.jpg" as the main picture?

It is locked for me but I'd appreciate if someone would do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuneIsFail (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Failure Rate Per What?

Quoting the article: "A 2005 survey conducted on the MacInTouch website found that the iPod had an average failure rate of 13.7%."

This is not clear to me. Failure rate per what? Per 1000 hours use? Per annum? 13.7% don't work at all?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The cited Macintouch article explains the figure. 13.7% of iPods were reported as having failed to work. But if I'm reading correctly this figure includes iPods that failed because they were dropped or iPods that still work but have short battery lifes or iPods that were sent back to Apple and worked on being returned even though Apple reported finding no problems (i.e. PEBKAC errors). AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened with the iPod nano scratch class action?

The suit was initiated in October 2005, but I can't find anything on it aside from sites reporting that the suit had been filed, and although Jason Tomczak was the named plaintiff he wasn't actually involved. Does anyone know what happened? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

the new lead image

...with the wikipedia logos, is, IMHO, a step backwards from even the blurred screens. now there's absolutely no indication of the native resolution, as the logos have just been pasted in right over there. i'm not sure this is a good thing. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't Apple have a copyright on the iPod design? Why is it okay to show the device but not the content of the screen? Surely if we have to blur the screen content we should be blurring the whole device? I don't get it and I'm not sure if I want to. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the short answer is... its not that simple due to the specifics of the wonderful US and international copyright laws and the different ways they apply to different "works". I'm not a fan of any of the blurring, if you take a picture of another phone, or GPS such as this: Image:TomTomOne.jpg, its interface is not blurred, even though it makes up most of the image... – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 03:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blurring the image was a bit silly. We are perfectly allowed to display the screens of the iPod, according to fair use. The reason the original image got blurred on Commons is that Commons does not utilize fair use images. Then the En Wikipedia image got deleted mistakenly as a duplicate of the one on Commons, even though the English WP one was not blurred. Someone with admin rights (hint hint) should undelete the original unblurred image and restore it to the article. --C S (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a blurred screen image and having a Wikipedia image are both inaccurate and really distracting. If we can't accurately display what's on the screen, we shouldn't show anything. Just have a blank screen. —Werson (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted the original unblurred image. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

iPod Linux

please could sombody add the alternate operating system for iPods, iPod Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albinoblackrabbit (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sterling Silver iPod

I remember a few years ago there was a competition promoted on free-to-air TV (in Australia) with the top prize being an iPod with the chrome back replaced with one made from sterling silver. I distinctly recall this because I was already aware of the difficulty in obtaining a repaired/replacement iPod if it had been engraved, and I wondered how much longer it would take if your prize iPod ended up being faulty.

I know this is ephemera/trivia but this information is the kind of thing I have come to expect on WP articles.

Does anyone have any more details about the promoter or the prize?

Connectionfailure (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ipod sound quality

any sources for sound quality of current generation ipods? as far as i can see they still sound poor. why is this? corporate neglect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.168.112 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Find some good sources, and it can go in the article. Otherwise, you just come across as a troll. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ipod's are great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.8.15 (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

its just from personal experience. i have both apple and sony products, the ipods total package is superior, but its sound is definitely cut off compared to the sony. sadly there don't seem to be any tests recently that i know of. its just odd apple would let it this issue fester. i have no problem with apple, i just want them to fix this so i can feel good about giving them my money again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.168.29 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the equalizer distorting things if bass is increased, it is suggested that "One possible workaround is to reduce the volume level of the songs by modifying the audio files." Shouldn't it also be mentioned that you could simply lower the levels of all the other bands, effectively making bass louder than them but without increasing any beyond 0dB and causing distortion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.245.211 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the rather poor sound quality as well. It's usually due to either:

• One song may be WAY louder than the preceding song, causing major clipping. Enable "Sound Check".
• A song may be heavy in a certain frequency, and there's no custom EQ option. This is irritating, but there's no fix...only the presets.

Sidriley (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Definite article again

So I've read through the previous arguments, and I understand the whole brand-versus-product thing. But look at some of these sentences:

Uncharacteristically, Apple did not develop iPod's software entirely in-house

iPod is a brand. It does not have software. This should be "Apple did not develop the software for the iPod line entirely in-house".

iPod can play several audio file formats

iPod is a brand. It cannot play anything. This should be "the iPod line can play several audio file formats".

iPod shuffle does not have a click wheel

The iPod Shuffle is a product. This should be "The iPod Shuffle does not have a click wheel".

iPod touch uses no buttons for any of these functions

The iPod Touch is a product. It should be "The iPod touch uses no buttons for any of these functions".

With the advent of the Windows-compatible iPod, iPod's default file system

iPod is a brand. It does not have a file system. This should be "With the advent of the Windows-compatible iPod, the iPod line's default file system".

simply copying audio or video files to the drive with a typical file management application will not allow iPod to properly access them

iPod is a brand. It cannot access files. This should be "simply copying audio or video files to an iPod with a typical file management application will not allow the player to properly access them".

Et cetera. If there are no objections to fixing these I'm going to go through the article and do so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now implemented this along with two additional changes:

1. I've used the term "an iPod" instead of "the iPod" in some places where the whole line is included. This just adds a bit of variation.
2. I've capitalised "iPod Shuffle", "iPod Nano" et cetera using normal title case with the first-letter exemption, per MOS:TM. I'm leaving notes of the talk pages of the affected models to have their articles moved to the appropriate titles.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So why is it that its OK to ignore typical capitalization for "iPod" and not "iPod nano"? What's different there? Just curious... – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We've got a specific exemption for iWhatever because it's used almost universally and it's embedded into the modern consciousness. We have no such exemption for other typographical quirks. Looking through the kind of sources normally used to establish modern style guidelines, every one uses "iPod" exclusively, while support for dropping the second capital is much spottier (BBC uses it exclusively, NYT slips up on blogs, WSJ / WaPo ignore it). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Name Change

I'm suggesting that this article be named iPod Family Mavericklovesipod (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not the most common name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not all called iPod Classic

Whoever wrote this page dosesn't know what they are talking about. iPod Classic was the name given to the current generation of the iPod
not the whole back-catalogue. if you look on the apple website they refer they previous models as ipod 5th gen, ipod 4th gen etc.
They don't call them iPod classic 5th gen, iPOD Classic 4th gen etc. and with the new model they just call it iPod Classic not iPod classic 6th gen.
THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED I HAVE CHANGED THIS NOW ON THE IPOD CLASSIC PAGE

--92.11.168.233 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Before Mac OS 8, it wasn't called Mac OS, just System. Yet apple chose to keep their version numbers. However, the iPod classic didn't have a huge hard drive (it's major feature) before they renamed it classic. Is it still the same product, people? Semicolons (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember going through this before, and trying to point out the same thing (that a Clickwheel iPod is not a "classic", for example), but whatever passed for "consensus" kept it the way it is. *shrug* – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was derived because in the announcement for the iPod classic, Jobs used the "iPod classic" term as a retronym. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Price of accessories

There should be a criticism of the pricing of iPod accessories and peripherals. I had an iPod briefly, and I was impressed with the variety, and inventiveness of the the things that plug into it. What turned me off is that their prices are disgustingly high to me. There is a website call www.anythingbutipod.com that is dedicated to all non-iPod mp3 players too. What their basis is may be in-line with my own, but they review a wide array of other mp3 players as well.Ben414 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban of iPod sales to North Korea

Include this or not?

• http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LMJCHO0&show_article=1
• http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/sale-of-ipods-other-electronics-to-north-korea-banned-217906.php
• http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/us-kills-north-korean-ipod-sales-to-spite-kim-jong-il-218161.php

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

iPod dock connector

I think the proprietary iPod dock connector should be covered under the 'criticism' section, as it makes it unnecessarily difficult to connect the unit to any system that adheres to the USB/IE1394 interface standards. It wasn't employed because it had any advantages over these connectors; this is painfully obvious as the cables do offer the respective interface on the opposite end. 80.128.251.99 (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be just your opinion, not suitable for this article unless you can find a source. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! The ipod sales growth bar graph has all TOTALLY incorrect product release dates!

The sales bar graph that lists the ipod models in each quarter TOTALLY disagrees with the product release dates in the rest of the article! As far as I can tell, the bar graph is supposed to show the quarterly sales of ipods and the products that existed in that quarter, but this graph shows products being introduced in quarters that are WAY different than the product release quarters in the timeline! So no matter what, one of these definitely MUST be totally WRONG! Either that or I'm totally misreading or misunderstanding something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod#Sales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod#Timeline_of_iPod_models —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.135.78 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Apple's fiscal year ends in September. Fiscal Q1 is Oct - Dec of previous year. So Q1 of 2008 is Oct - Dec of 2007, Q2 of 2008 is Jan - Mar of 2008 and so on. Please see the comment on Image:IPodsales 2008Q3.svg. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dock

The iPod dock connector section should link to the main article about the dock connector. Could someone change that please? Photographerguy (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a link to dock connector. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

voooovv ama and ada this is madd cooollll!!! sighned almaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.163.163 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New ipods...

Hey, this isnt really like a fact or contribution to the article.. but ive noticed that the past few ipods had all been released near september, like the classic and the new nano and the old nano like 2 years ago.. does anyone know if another ipod is in the making, just cuz its that time of year..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.69.37 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Apple didn't invent the Ipod.

http://gizmodo.com/5046463/apple-admits-british-man-invented-ipod-in-1979-uses-him-to-win-patent-lawsuit

Needs mentioning, the article is worded as such to convey that they did.

Sp12.07 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sp12.07

Given that the source is a Daily Mail article, I think one would have to look at exactly what Apple said in the mentioned patent dispute before drawing any conclusions. Furthermore, nowhere does this article suggest that Apple invented the portable media player, which is what the Mail article is making out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more articles saying similar things, that's just the first I found. Apple was even quoted as saying he invented it, to win the trial.

It says, "Designed". Which is fair enough in some contexts. To avoid possible misunderstandings from reading the Wikipedia article,it justifies mentioning that they didn't invent it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.86.27 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon and the 7G iPod?

Amazon is referring to the new, 120GB iPod Classic as the 7th Generation, but it seems to be a minor revision to me (no case or UI changes) and is still the 6th Generation. Can anyone find a reference to the 120GB Classic as the 7th Generation on Apple's website? CritCol —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Apple's support site treats it as a new capacity. The designation is "iPod Classic (120 GB)". Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it hould be called the enhanced 6g iPod or 6.5g iPod as the enhanced iPod 5g was called 5.5g. --Tinny186 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Tinny186

iPod Models and software

Would anybody object to my turning this section on the page - "Models" into a list and expanding it much more? iMatthew (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

file:///Volumes/jlooney/Documents/mmtp/p4_.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.18.230 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an image, please?

Why is there no header image? That doesn't make sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.94.164 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Title image

Does anyone else dislike it? I think it should be a picture of all 4 of the current generation iPod, not a random pic of older models brent (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a better image in mind, then please let us know. Please mention it here on the Talk page first though, so we can make sure it is something that we can get consensus on and isn't something that is going to be deleted. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I dislike it too. I wish I had a better image though. Maybe the click wheel should be the default. Dylpickleh8 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if we could get an image of ALL ipods, as the current one is missing the latest ipod

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:IPod/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There have been two requests for citation since March 2008

• There are two dead links.[1]

• A few sections are not adequately cited, for instance: Software, User interface, Connectivity, iTunes Store, Models, and File storage and transfer.

• I am concerned that the Criticism section has been tagged as a potential breach of npov since 8 September, with no apparent movement since then. By their very nature it is difficult to be neutral in a section devoted to criticism, and the material in this section would therefore be better integrated into the body of the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Equalizer subsection, as it was stubby, contained two citation tags and added little to the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have delisted the article. I see no reason for a community GAR. Geometry guy 10:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Version

I like the older version, with a picture and discription of each iPod model, not the picture with random older iPods.

I will try to fix it. Dylpickleh8 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

iPod Repair and Parts

iPods can be repaired in almost any case. Every part of a ipod can be easily exchanged with new parts that can be bought online within the USA. They are cheap and in most cases easy to install.

There are several places on the internet to get the repairs done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.221.254 (talk • contribs) 21:13, April 14, 2008

Alternatively, iShopRepair in Toronto, Canada will upgrade or repair any iPod and provide a one year warranty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdeignan (talk • contribs) 22:26, July 7, 2008

you guys making a point or selling iPods? --Hypo Mix (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

160 Gigabyte iPod?

I don't believe there's a 160 gig iPod... If you look at the table showing the iPod generations it says in the capacity section, " 80, 120,160 ". I checked the Apple website and they do not say anything about a 160 gig, yet I search it with Google and I see results on Amazon, Ebay, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber-Awesomeness (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) The 160gb iPod was discontinued. The highest capacity is back to 120gb.Dylpickleh8 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Major Image problems

Hey guys, I was taking a look at this article and it really needs some help.... The Images are out of wack and are just wrong.

List of items needing to be fixed:

• First image (Noted already)
• 2 Missing Images in List of iPod Models (4th iPod Nano Model (FIXED) and 2nd iPod Touch Model)
• The 2nd iPod Mini Picture (Does not show the full iPod)
• Also the image of 2 iPod Chargers could be replaced with a better one, not neccesary.

Thats just my 5 Cents but at least that 2nd point NEEDS to be done....

Stealth (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me I'd love better images, but copyright is always a problem.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the 2nd iPod mini picture in the table was intentionally shown this way. The only real difference between the two mini models on the exterior is the color of the button labels and so a picture highlighting this difference was chosen so as not to have two seeminly identical pictures in a row.

Also, the iPod touch photos are just of the 2nd gen (according to the picture). I've replaced the first one with a 1g photo. ~ Paul^T+/_C 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy the 2G mini argument because the image is rotated and cropped oddly. If it was just the clickwheel--the whole clickwheel, upright--then maybe.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If the clickwheel were upright, it would be hard to tell that it is a mini. The rotation allows for the detail of the colored labels to be highlighted while still being recognizeable and showing the rest of the iPod. Again, I'm just reiterating the original argument for the image. I'd link to it if I had the time to dig through the talk page archive. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

there is a mistake in the article, in the specifications of the 2nd generation ipod touch it says "iPhone OS 2.0" the version of the firmware of the 2nd gen ipod is 2.1.1 --White Hawk (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2G iPod Touch shipped with 2.0, but it has been updated since. In fact, it shouldn't be referred to as iPhone OS 2.0 but as OSX Touch 2.0. CritCol (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's called iPhone OS. aido2002talk·userpage 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Names for each models

If my memory was correct,sub-names for each models always begins with lowercase(like classic,mini,nano or touch). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.3.77.7 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. This article (and nearly every other article in Wikipedia that touches on this subject) viiolates Apple's trademark naming conventions, as regards its iPod models. Apple is very clear about capitalization, e.g., "iPod touch"; not "iPod Touch"; iPod nano, not iPod Nano, etc. I can start fixing these, but have to be very cautious about what I change, as changing capitalization breaks links to filenames. I'll start fixing these, but I want to bring it up publically, as I expect, otherwise, some more "senior" editor might take it upon him/herself to go around behind me and "fix" my corrections. This is not a trivial matter, and is not a matter of Wikipedia guidelines or naming conventions. As things stand, by not acknowledging Apple's policies in the naming of its products, Wikipedia is guilty of spreading misinformation. Since Wikipedia is used as a usage standard, it's important to us to get this right. (I've posted this same discussion paragraph on the "Apple Inc." page. rowley (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything was originally lower-case, but a while back, an editor went through capitalizing everything citing WP (I'm not sure how valid it was, but in the model-specific pages, Apple's marketing capitalization is noted). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Is Missing Criticisms on Fair Use, DRM etc..

The I-pod doesn't accept music from ANY subscription service. Further, it won't license it's DRM to anybody else. Cleary this is strong-handed and not fair to users and vendors. TKirby (talk)

Actually that is not correct. The iPod will accept music from other subscription services. Just not ones encumbered with DRM from it's competitors, Microsoft and Real. Which is already mentioned in the article. See iPod#iTunes Store. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What does “Ipod” mean?

This article does not explain the etymology of this strange name, and I personally would like an explanation. The article says that when it was named, someone remembered a film quote: “open the pod bay doors”, but that doesn’t given any explanation why “pod” was actually chosen, or why “I” was put before it.

“I” is popularly added to things to represent “Internet” (according to Wikipedia, anyway). But that would make no sense in the case of the Ipod, as the device is not primarily Internet-based, nor does it require the Internet to be used. It is a portable music player and has very little to do with the Internet.

I had heard (on TV) that the “pod” came from the word “podcast”, to reflect the fact that you can use the device to recieve podcasts. (The “pod” in podcast of course stands for “Portable On Demand”). Obviously this story is not true, so I think the article should dispell this myth and clarify that “Ipod” is not derived from the word “podcast”.

Can someone please shed some light on this, with citations if possible? Thanks.

--68.102.122.253 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Apple has never released any information on where the pod comes from. However, We know that the "i" came from the notebook and all-in-one that came in the late 90's "iBook" and "iMac" The iMac was released 1 year before the iBook. Apple currently has several product names with the prefix "i" including iPod, iMac, iPhone, iLife, iWork, iTunes, iCal, and iSync.

62.56.78.247 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the word "podcast" came from iPod, not the other way around. Please see our articles on podcasts and History of podcasting for more on that.

Beyond that, sorry Apple has not explained where they got the name iPod. There are a bunch of conflicting rumours, but no reliable sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that Apple had introduced the successful line of iMac computers three years earlier, in 1998. There the "i" clearly referred to the Internet. So using the "i" again in iPod may have been done to carry over the goodwill established by one product line to another. And I think you're underplaying the importance of the Internet to the iPod. Yes, it's possible to use an iPod without downloading songs from the Internet, but almost all iPod users make Internet downloads of music for their iPods, in addition to copying from hard media. And since Apple also owned the iTunes Store, it was in their interests to promote the Internet aspect of acquiring music. — Walloon (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing I've seen to an explanation about where the name came from is in Steven Levy's story for Wired, "The Perfect Thing." It's at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/ipod.html rowley (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting edit to protected page

{{editsemiprotected}} external link looks like it could be worth adding http://informationtechnology.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_49

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Axendra (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:RS; blogs and free web hosting sites are usually not considered as a reliable source. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

IPod Penis? Please, the 'protector' of this page remove the Ipod Penis. Vandalism happens, and you still quite?

{{editsemiprotected}} If I had autoconfirmed status, I would make the revert. As it is, it seems ClueBot only caught the second of two edits by Salazan. Please revert back to the edit by Furrybeagle. JeffSheets (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd both edits were reverted but the vandalism is still there. --207.161.23.180 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Its gone, try clearing your Cache--Jac16888^Talk 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done that, still there. --207.161.23.180 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't know. The ipod penis thing is definitely no longer there--Jac16888^Talk 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trapped at this edit. I tried different computers, same thing. --207.161.23.180 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just purged the server cache, any better?. If not, perhaps its your network, or it could be something else, who knows. Try leaving it a few hours--Jac16888^Talk 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That did it, it's fixed thanks! --207.161.23.180 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help--Jac16888^Talk 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

iPod touch 1st generation photo

i knowk this may be irrelevant but the photo of the original ipod touch is the one of the second generation ipod touch. --White Hawk (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

White hawk is right. The image clearly shows the volume buttons on the lefthand side and the 2.0 firmware, which never shipped on the 1G iPod Touch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.28.36 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be OK though for a picture of the 1G iPod touch to have the 2.0 software on it even though it didn't ship with it. Photographerguy (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

'Bold text''''''Italic text

social criticisms of ipods

Unless there is another article that addresses this, there have been social concerns about social isolation involving use of ipods. It's not a technical criticism but this issue needs to be included somewhere. The google search "Ipod isolation" has over 44,000 matches. Here's one example first link about a school in Sydney banning ipods due to social isolation. Here's another link to check out. Thoughts? MrMurph101 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So the professor who banned her students from using Google and Wikipedia, is also dismissive of the iPod and digital technology in general? Is anyone surprised? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This was just one example. There are plenty of others to choose from. I have never heard of this person before but the issue is a significant one. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this belong in the iPod article? It's not something that's specific to the iPod, but rather digital audio players (and possibly all sorts of other devices) in general. Maybe in an article like Digital audio player. Scootey (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New Ipod Shuffle today (3rd Generation)

The chart needs editing! Spector17 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sales figures and sources

The sale figure in the sidebar (of > 151M iphones as of April 2008) is documented, but the figure of > 173M in the introduction (As of September 2008, more than 173 million iPods had been sold worldwide, making it the best-selling digital audio player series in history.) leads to http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/05/steve-jobs-live-apples-the-beat-goes-on-special-event/17 (a year before) which only mentions 110M iPods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.4.223.206 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

iPod

umm, isn't this title against naming guidelines? 60.240.41.159 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a long, long time ago, but it hasn't been for some time. See the manual of style. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

competition

there should be a section contain information of its competition or at least have some mention of it. Geekyperson (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A new infobox image...?

On the image of the infobox, it shows all of the latest iPod models except for the iPod touch... the image shows the iPod touch 1G (black screen frame), instead of the 2nd generation (has a chrome screen frame). Please update this. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that the author update it. Thank you for bringing that up.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

authentication chip

There should be a mention of the "authentication chips" Apple puts in newer iPods that prevent them from working with unauthorized third party accessories such as video cables, headphones, docks, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.75.198 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interoperability

I didn't see any mention of interoperability in the article. This article claims that Apple has a history of trying to prevent interoperability using: firmware encryption, database hash changes, and code obfuscation.

Related links:

• Apple Shuts Down iPod Interoperability Effort
• Giuseppe Mazziotti. "Did Apple’s refusal to license proprietary information enabling interoperability with its iPod music player constitute an abuse under Article 82 of the EC Treaty?" World Competition 28.2 (2005): 253-275.

Doesn't this warrant mentioning? pgr94 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sales figures

Any chance someone can find some reliable ones, I've had a look around with no luck. We're currently showing 173m In Sept 2008 and 206m 5 months earlier in April 2008, even for WP this is bad! RaseaC (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction

{{editsemiprotect}} The infobox says the iPod touch music service is the iTunes WiFi Music Store. With the 3.0 update, it is now the iTunes WiFi Store, since it sells TV shows, movies, etc. Would someone please fix? 98.230.214.136 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It still says music in the infobox. It needs to say "iTunes Store". Would someone please fix? 98.230.214.136 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Another infobox correction is that "previous" needs to be changed to "current" in the caption. Would someone please fix? 68.35.20.151 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done

iTunes Store

I'm pretty sure that the iTunes store is not iPod touch only. --Supergeek1694 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason why it says that the iTunes Store is iPod touch only is because it can only be accessed on an iPod touch. An iPod classic, for example, can't access the iTunes Store directly on the device, while the iPod touch can. So there you go. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 19:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

USB Connectivity

For iPods with USB interface, I have read in the manual for a third-party adapter that it only supports USB 2.0 FS (12 MBPS), which meant the adapter was compatible with the following:

iPod Nano (as from firmware Version 1.021.01 or later), iPod Nano G2 (as from firmware Version 1.02 or later), iPod Generation 5 (as from firmware Version 1.021.01 or later). Firmware version 1.00 or older are not compatible.

and so implying the iPod Mini, Shuffle and earlier Classics were not USB 2.0 FS compatible. I can't find an authoritative reference for this, where should I look please? 86.132.41.223 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Apple kill off the iPod Classic?

Cnet.com seems to believe so that in the near future, the classic will become obselete.[2] Should this information be included in the article, or more specifically the iPod classic article? —Terrence and Phillip 03:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:CRYSTAL.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

This article continues to give incorrect information about capitalization of the product names. rowley (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be written; "iPod". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.52.19 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be changed soonest, as it's clearly stated that wikipedia spells 'properly', despite company advertising ploys. DannyBoy2k (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article still says that the iPod Nano has a resolution of 240x320 when actually now since the screen is bigger the resolution is 240x376. Whenever anyone changes it to be accurate, someone marks it as "vandalism" and undoes the changes. Check if I am right at Apple's iPod Nano page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.38.247 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Planned obselescance?

Should the accusation of planned obsolescence for various models of the i-pod be included in the criticism section? I'm sure that reliable sources about it could be found fairly easily with a few Google searches. 121.217.59.213 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you take the initiative and Google them yourself, you might get a better response. But I might consider mentioning it, citing CS Monitor] and NPR (possibly - it's a blog). Although they represent pretty reliable organizations, both of these are cited to one person's opinion. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noticing that the design of the iPod was also done with the help of the outside design team which also was involved with the design of the Rio 300 thus the similiarity in the wheel and display layout. It is also the case that several of the folks involved with Portal Player were in fact ex-Rio/RIoport employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.32.80 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of sold iPods

According to Steve Jobs the actual numbers of sold iPods is over 250 000 000. At the introduction of the iPad at Jan. 27th he said that Apple passed the mark a few weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.65.189 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

product life cycle of the popular MP3 player

determine which stage of the life cycle the product is in currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.4.46 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User Interface: Apps that iPhone has and iPod Touch doesn't.

The iPhone has the extra apps: Phone, SMS, Camera, Compass (3GS only), and iPod, which on the iPod Touch is separated as Music and Video. If not appropriate here, can we add it to the iPod Touch article if it isn't there?Exactly the iPhone is the most awesome thing since the invention of the wheel. 99.27.221.154 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How's this? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. There's no point in listing it in the iPod article. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

iPod redirect

Shouldn't the "ipod" page be refered as "apple_ipod", thus it's an Apple product and not a company? Äggmackan (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No. You seem to be confused. Article titles don't have to be company names. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 129.55.200.20, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The section about the iTunes Store needs to be updated to reflect the fact that no purchases contain DRM any more. A significant portion of this section is dedicated to discussing the DRM and FairPlay, which needs to be balanced now that it no longer applies to new purchases.

References:
iTunes Plus was launched in May 2007: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html
It was expanded and the price was lowered in October 2007: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/17itunes.html
All songs were planned to be DRM-free by April 2009: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html

Note also that the iTunes_Store wikipedia page reflects these updates already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store

129.55.200.20 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I'm not sure where to start exactly. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. The editsemiprotected template requires a 'please change X to Y' level of detail. You are welcome to either leave the request here as a suggestion to other editors who might be interested in fleshing it out or start a new edit request with the exact content you want to add to the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Hope I'm not treading on anyone's toes. But I went in and edited the relevant passages. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC) the apple company has recently made a new invention it is called the ipad.

d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.247.207 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling!

Retail availability October 23, 2001-present (first lanuched) Please correct "lanuched"

As of June 4, 2010 the typo was no longer present. Music Sorter (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

iTunesU

Should there be a section on iTunesU, or should that be a seperate article? In either case I think somewhere it needs to be mentioned Willbennett2007 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.24.178.79, 28 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The statement that the power adapters for ipod often are larger at other continents is a lie. Please remove that line. 85.24.178.79 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done A quick check of Apple's website shows that the Uk adpters are small, and the continental Europe adapters are about the size of the second-from right one. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lordskelic, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} As the new iPod's have come out, this page needs to be updated.

Lordskelic (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, no specific request made, therefore nothing to fix. (Also, the article has already been tagged for needing an update.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

editing article

can a monitor please update the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.183 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC) " Doing...  ℳono  23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.203.145 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Would a moderator please change the table found in models to correct a naming inaccuracy? The full listing of iPods from 1st to 6th generation is listed as 'Classic' but this conflicts with Apple's official naming guidelines. Only the 6th generation iPod is meant to use the suffix 'Classic' - the others are simply iPods. For reference, please see the Apple KB article, Identifying iPod Models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanedit2 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

86.144.121.118 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just to make the table readable. The 6G entry of that table states "introduced the Classic suffix". I suppose one could add a footnote to the sideheader directing readers to some text stating that before 6G these were just called "ipod".DavidRF (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a note of it above the table, but you're welcome to change it of course. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mac interface

It seems that the typeface in the first iPod was similar to that of the "Classic" environment. I think this should be addressed. --Beanygirl80 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdated!

Where it says "All iPods (except the 3rd-generation iPod shuffle and iPod Touch) have five buttons and the later generations have the buttons integrated into the click wheel" it should say "All iPods (except the 3rd and 5th-generation iPod shuffle, the 6th-generation iPod Nano and iPod Touch) have five buttons and the later generations have the buttons integrated into the click wheel"

Fixed! Justinxtreme (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 25 December 2010

Footnote #95 is currently a deadlink, but the article can now be found at http://www.chinesetao.com/Newsfactor%20Sept%202006.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.149.174 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed!!!! Justinxtreme (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Update needed tagline

I think I've fixed up the page (well most of it).... If it needs more "updating" let me know" Justinxtreme (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliability and Durability subsection

"A 2005 survey ... found that the iPod line had an average failure rate of 13.7%"

I LOVE YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.195.6 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC) What does that mean? Do you think the regular Joe has any idea what a statistic like that is supposed to convey? This must be made more understandable. 203.56.22.126 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How To Reset Ipod

Many people need to reset their iPod but few know how to do it. There are unlucky occasions where your iPod may encounter hiccups.

When this occurs, it is best if you are well prepared. Learning to reset an iPod is one of the best things you can do as an iPod owner to be able to save yourself a lot of time and frustration.

If you have a frozen iPod you don’t have to bash it or throw it around in the hope that this manner it will get better with out you having to mess with an extended process to restore it. If this has occurred to you, do not lose hope, there are a few simple steps you can stick to bring it back to life in no time at all.

If the iPod is frozen or it will just not turn on, the steps to reset it will vary by model. You may be able to easily tell which iPod model you have if you are not sure by going to Apple Support page.

As soon as you find out how to reset your iPod you will understand how simple it is.

How To Reset Ipod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.208.59 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rudis323, 25 April 2011

|service = iTunes Music Store, App Store, iBooks, MobileMe, Game Center
(online services available only on iPod Touch)

~~

Done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No mention of designer?

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

Gone ahead and mentioned Ive whose recognition is long overdue.Twobells (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

We need the timeline updated to include the iPhone 4s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.83.245 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can correct, the misconception that is shown on the "WIKPEDIA SITE" And is also shown on Apples own site.

Who came up with the name and who owns the authors copyrights?

II is a total fallacy that The name iPod was proposed by Vinnie Chieco, a freelance copywriter, hired by apple computers. The Truth and the checkable facts are as follows: It was the name of a business in the state of Queensland Australia.

Who  as part of the worlds first digital hub  designed  a INTERNET KIOSK   for public use.

And it was advertised in magazines as an i-Pod its purpose was to be an internet /information kiosk. hence the letter " I "

'And the word POD had nothing to do with HAL from the movie as the movie had not been written or made at this time.

It was used to infer a pod like a seed pod full of good ideas. \ The bottom line is Apple computers and Steve Jobs DID NOT come up with the name I Pod. It was Hugh Gray and if anyone wishes to CHECK THE FACTS they can check online the business names register at Qld.gov.au Apple are and their lawyers are well aware of this if this fact and to date have not paid out one SINGLE CENT to the original inventor who STILL HAS AUTHORS COPYRIGHT over the NAME I-POD . It may be of interest that the use of the letter "I" as in i-Pod was used by the i-pod business in Australia , even before Apple used it on their I mac credit where credit is due.

Give the original guy who came up with the name the credit for it 

even if you don't want to do the right thing and part with any money.

AND YES MR GRAY IS STILL coming up with new ideas all the time,

ideas that Apple  could have had If only you had done  the right thing !

But I still wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year for 2011}

Hugh.gray@bigpond.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.201.142 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Specfications

Specfic Details needed to be put under Ipod Touch 4gen such as camera pixels etc. 21:32 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to simplify and summarize the whole entire iPod line. Specific specifications are featured at each iPod's respective pages.

Indeed they are, and just about everybody knows how small the devices are anyway, but I wish the photo in the sidebar also showed a ruler. Casey (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

iPod market share stats

It's not clear where in the Appleinsider article "How big can it get?" states that over 90%/70% of players are iPods.

Further some of the pie charts on Appleinsider page are estimates for 2005... Perhaps that citation (62) needs review?

144.32.48.87 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No mention of designer

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

Gone ahead and mentioned Ive whose recognition is long overdue.Twobells (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized the article, fixed.Twobells (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012

In the Connectivity section this line is wrong;

The second-, third-, and fifth-generation iPod Shuffle uses a single 3.5 mm jack which acts as both a headphone jack and a data port for the dock.

As the fifth generation of iPod shuffles is yet to be released.

204.10.46.254 (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Thanks, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2012

In the caption of the top image, showing "The current iPod line"..., a reference to a year would be advisable, because "current" is not enough specific IMHO. For example, the caption might begin "The current (2012) IPod line" etc etc.

Provvi (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done The Manual of Style agrees that words which easily become dated should be avoided, but it makes an exception for "pages which are regularly updated." Since the caption might not be kept up as well as the article, I've changed the text to capture the date the image was made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ipod

Why does it say that the ipod is invented by Kane Kramer? He invented a prototype digital music player that the ipod based its technology from. He didn't invent the ipod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.255.253 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect OS system info under iPod Touch

NONE of the iPod touches will work under OS10.4 any longer. It will require an upgrade to 10.5.8, which Apple stores will do for free since the original specs changed (originally 10.4 was correct, but no longer). However that upgrade will render some older programs inoperable, such as Photoshop 7, for which there is no upgrade path. (A new !!expensive!! PS version will be required.) 184.20.89.213 (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

invented by who?

Did Apple come up with it independently on its own, without knowing about this other guy who had a patent for something similar first? One of the Apple people said he had the idea before he went to work with them to develop it, they having the idea on their own which is why they recruited him, and other people came out with similar things before them even. So the Ipod wasn't invented by this guy, just something similar, but with far less memory that failed. Perhaps mention that it wasn't the first of its kind, and other things had been made before it to avoid confusion. Dream Focus 02:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ipod versions

I believe that the leading picture, lists and timeline indicate that the last ipod update was in September 2010. This means that the page is in urgent need of updation. Is it possible to look in to this at all? 92.0.108.223 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Far from NPOV

The criticisms section is far from NPOV. An Apple-fan-based site conducts research on the reliability of Apple products, and we don't see an inherent flaw in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.76.33 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturer

The manufacturer is listed as FoxConn. This does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's practice. For instance, the Xbox is also assembled by Foxconn, but in that article the manufacturer is listed (rightly) as Microsoft.

Also, FoxConn is not an OEM, or even an ODM. It is a contract manufacturer. There seems to be confusion on these points and the terms are used in contradictory ways. But the clearest use of the terms that is also in line with most industry usage is: An OEM makes equipment of its own design and sells it to consumers in its own name. An ODM makes equipment of its own design, and others sell it under their names. (They are "white label" suppliers.) A contract manufacturer makes equipment of others' design and it is sold under others' names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.198.101 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2012

Please add "the" to the start of the first sentence: "iPod is a line of portable media players..." This is how normal English usage works, and right now, the article has 50 instances of the string "the iPod". 2001:18E8:2:28AE:2CD4:E23A:EC3:A04A (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I made a mistake. The first sentence should be "the iPod is a line of portable media players." 2001:18E8:2:28AE:2CD4:E23A:EC3:A04A (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has reorganized the intro of the article and it says "The iPod" now. RudolfRed (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Connectivity

There is no mention anywhere in the article about connectivity to external data sources other than by direct connection to a PC. Since the device can access the web and email, surely there should be mention of how these connections are accomplished. Is it through Wi-Fi, cell phone channels, Bluetooth, or some other means? Does the user have to pay an ongoing fee for such connectivity? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012

ok i was just trying to bash you because ipods suck double the price of androids? and i still have to buy EVERYTHING on the stpid thing and it STILL wont do ANYTHING i want maybe you should stop being suck douches and go openware unless you want your entire company to go under i HIGHLY suggest making CHANGES like now like get the f*** on it why you reading? go fix your damn company 108.80.182.20 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please don't "bash" Wikipedia: it is not affiliated with Apple in any way. RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on January 6th 2013

The 7th Generation Nano is shown having both Video and Speakers added back as well as the addition of Bluetooth connectivity - There are NO SPEAKERS in the 7th Generation Nano - I have one in my handIvabign (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture Request

I think there has to be a picture for the iPod U2 Special Edition. Why there are no one? Miss Bono (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Headphone jack details

Neither this nor the List of iPod models articles contains any details on the changes to the headphone jacks over time. There's a brief mention of the addition of charging and data transfer, but that's it. I seem to recall that the jacks have changed several times, and it would seem this would definitely be worth mentioning. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

iPod classic 7th generation.

A new listing needs to be added for the 7th generation classic even though it has the same capacity as the 6th generation (16GB). Apparently there are two different Apple product numbers MB150LL/A 6th genertation MC297LL/A 7th generation I couldn't find anything on Apple's site about the 6th generation but Amazon clearly lists a 6th and 7th generation. Comparing Amazon specs it appears that the newer 7th generation is slightly thinner at 0.41 inches vs 0.53 of the 6th. With this reduction, it also got lighter and now weighs 4.9 oz vs 5.7 oz. (Although Amazon contradicts itself and on page for 6th generation MB150LL/A and says that is weighs 4.2 oz under 'product details' and 5.7 oz under 'technical details' but I suspect the product detail listing is wrong but could not verify that on Apple's site) This may have been accomplished by a smaller battery since the playing time went down from 40 hours to 36 for music and 7 to 6 hours for video.

Apparently ehow is blocked, but for a source of information between differences of 6/7 go to the main website and insert '/about_6323160_difference-6th-generation-7th-generation.html' Mrpops2ko (talk)

To add some more information to this, the "6th gen iPod" was available in a single-platter ("thin") and dual-platter ("thick") hard drive configuration. This dual-size setup has been the case since nearly the iPod's inception. With the "6th gen iPod" or "iPod classic", the 80GB was the "thin" model, and the 160GB was the "thick" model, since the 160GB hard drive consisted of dual 80GB platters. Yes, because this iPod was thicker, it contained a larger capacity battery, similar to how the 60GB/80GB 5th gen iPods had longer battery life than the 30GB models. Starting with the next iPod, the 120GB iPod classic, Apple dropped the dual-platter version, likely due to declining sales of this large capacity model (since 80GB and now 120GB was plenty of storage anyway). As a result, there was no more "thick" model with a larger battery. However, Apple did make some updates (as you'd expect with newer hardware) so the transition from the 80GB to the 120GB model increased battery life from 30 hours to 36 hours. The newest "7th gen" 160GB iPod is just a refresh of the 120GB iPod. It's no longer dual 80GB platters, but a single 160GB platter in the "thin" form factor and the "thin" battery that provided 36 hours in the 120GB model. Hopefully I cleared this up. I'm a huge old-school iPod geek who still has the original 5GB model so if you have any questions let me know. AquaStreak (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

"2007 Engineer of the Year Finalist Michael Dhuey’s Hardware Knowledge Helps Breathe Life Into iPod, TelePresence", Design News, September 24, 2007. Hugo2607 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC) The link referenced is dead, it should be changed to this archived version.

Done Stickee (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Move to Ipod?

wikipedia Manuel of style says That articles should bE capITalIsED so please MoVE to Ipod, not iPod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:5380:5dc:6c28:2f8f:42da:839a (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Original iPod

Anyone who can edit this page please put a picture of a first gen iPod. I just feel like it makes sense. --Generic BobJoe (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request by ImBrandonSky (talk)

Replace "Video playback, speakers, and camera removed" with "Video playing, built-in speakers, and camera removed".

Because I like it this way. No vandalism please.

ImBrandonSky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done ImBrandonSky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Generic BobJoe, I think maybe you should put in that they are built in speakers. Not "video playing" though. Its just some people might think its some kind of USB speaker thing that you snap on top of the iPod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generic BobJoe (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

no more 160GB version

Since the iPod Classic is no longer being offered, I'd say it's logical not to mention the capacity of 160GB either and rather the maximum 64GB of the largest iPod Touch right now 178.116.73.144 (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Done — AYTK (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Release date calculation is incorrect.

This should be 14 years ago:

"Release date October 23, 2001; 13 years ago" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.108.33 (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

I think that you should change the 14 years of the ipod to 15 years of the ipod since this is 2016 67.212.101.174 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Just like with people's age, we display the number of full years elapsed since launch date, i.e. the iPod will turn 15 on October 23, 2016. The calculation is automatic. — JFG ^talk 15:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

name

why is it called an ipod and not an iplayer for example? There is no explanation in the article that it is a cross-branding of an i range that came from the iMAC and what that i means. there is some info in the iMAc page but no link from this article, assuming that from a reader is poor encycopedic style. maybe it should go with the branding aspect whic here is in the too long introduction. so some rewriting could be good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.117 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs refreshing/updating

Particularly in "Industry impact" section there are dead links used as "references" (Apple's /education/teachers-professors/mobile-learning.html which per archive.org last existed in 2010 and is in any case a first-party reference), and a phrase "the iPod program continues today with modifications" is cited with an article dated 2006 (!). The "Accessories" section mentioning connectors provided in cars or airplanes should specify which connector was used. --92.225.61.147 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

iPod is the name of the product with a lowercase "i". Recently, a change was made to capitalize the "i" on iPod, which is inconsistent with how the product is referred to in major publications and from Apple itself. The Chicago Manual of Style states "Brand names or names of companies that are spelled with a lowercase initial letter followed by a capital letter (eBay, iPod, iPhone, etc.) need not be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or heading, though some editors may prefer to reword." "Chicago Manual of Style". -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, commercial companies prescribing spelling rules that outweigh basic rules that everybody has had to learn in school, is definitely one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Can't wait to get my hands on the first school book that says, "These are the rules, although it might be wise to subscribe to Apple's newsletter, because Tim Cook can overrule any single one of them whenever he feels it benefits Apple's business interests". If major publishers think these companies can dictate orthographic rules and that they should follow them in their publications, that's just sad. I know I'm being very sarcastic, but I am by no means attacking you, Dane2007. In fact, I want to thank you for your friendly invitation to discuss the matter here. It's just that IMO the Chicago Manual has completely lost it, but I'm not going to edit war over this. Have a nice day, Caudex Rax ツ (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

Fix iPod (6th generation) on infobox Special:Contributions/Leo Lion (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

Can you change these source links back from:

• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270031332376238.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270031332376238.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

please? They redirect to the "sign up/subscribe" page. 103.199.137.190 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! — IVORK _Discuss 03:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017

Make sure and tell people that thousands of people have tried to approach apple about turning of shuffle and they have never fixed it with an update or even a reply 76.191.79.245 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Source? Benjamin (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No longer made but still available

The article previously said only the Touch was now available. That is not correct. Other models are still being sold but, once inventory is depleted, that's it. I confirmed this both at an Apple store and at an independent retailer. Siberian Husky (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Pocket computer

Is an iPod a pocket computer? Benjamin (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a music player. It's like what the Walkman was years ago, except an iPod plays digital files and media. It's for playing music, listening to podcasts, etc. It doesn't have computer functionality. Siberian Husky (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017

75.159.75.30 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on IPod. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121220045904/http://home.comcast.net/~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm to http://home.comcast.net./~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505034356/http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/ipod/engineering/engineering.html to http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/ipod/engineering/engineering.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820190456/https://www.apple.com/ipod/carintegration.html to https://www.apple.com/ipod/carintegration.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826061150/http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2006-June/003218.html to http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2006-June/003218.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517125920/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227124346/http://news.worldofapple.com/category/world-of-apple-events/ to http://news.worldofapple.com/category/world-of-apple-events/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060604141041/http://www.mp3.com/features/stories/3646.html to http://www.mp3.com/features/stories/3646.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041022041812/http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/14/ipodbattery to http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/14/ipodbattery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041022032309/http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/21/ipodapplecare to http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/21/ipodapplecare/

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) 08:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IPod. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110624093652/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/nov/14ipod.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/nov/14ipod.html

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) 12:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph picture

I wonder if it's necessary to have a picture of the iPod lineup in the lead infobox anymore, now that it's down to one product and has no potential whatsoever to increase again. To begin with, it's already a truncated lineup considering that it shows the lineup as of a time when one model was already taken out of production, and now two more have been. I think we should replace it. Should we use the iPod logo, perhaps? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page protected?

--2001:8A0:E579:7F01:3051:6227:C64A:8364 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Add images

Please add images of iPod Touch 2G and iPod Touch 3G.

--2001:8A0:E579:7F01:680B:AFC2:4E87:E3F6 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Change image description?

In the image of discontinued iPod models, the leftmost and second-to-left iPods are described as 'iPod Classic'. Since the Classic branding wasn't applied to either of these models , it would be more accurate to describe them as an 'iPod 5th Gen' (or 'iPod Video') and 'iPod 4th Gen' respectively.

SorenFox (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Typo in History section

There's a typo in the first paragraph of the History section.

Change ". . . big an heavy so the company decided to develop its own." To ". . . big and heavy so the company decided to develop its own." Hologem38 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done EN-Jungwon 01:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

The company "Philips" is misspelled twice in the article, it is only written with one "l". Jayaar72 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

Just a small typo where it says "... compliment it", the correct word is "... complement it". Incyphe (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

Change: "Fadell found support for his project with Apple and was hired by Apple Computers in 2001 as an independent contractor to work on the iPod project then code-name project P-68" To: "Fadell found support for his project with Apple Computer and was hired by Apple in 2001 as an independent contractor to work on the iPod project, then code-named project P-68"

"Apple Computers" was not the name of the company - it used the singular; it should probably be written out fully for the first usage, and then shortened to just 'Apple' thereafter. "...then code-name project..." uses the wrong tense. BritishRedFox (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done  A S U K I T E  13:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

History

Fadell, who had previously developed the Philips Velo and Nino PDA, had started a company called Fuse Systems to build the MP3 player and had been turned down by RealNetworks, Sony and Philips. Rubinstein had already discovered the Toshiba hard disk drive while meeting with an Apple supplier in Japan, and purchased the rights to it for Apple, and had also already worked out how the screen, battery, and other key elements would work.

I've no interest, for or against, in Apple, but this seems less than lucid: the first and only mention of this Toshiba HD, plus no indication of why it was vital to the project. Toshiba are renowned for excellent drives, but they have made many models, and obviously there have been many other manufacturers [ though by now basically down to 3 ]; so what was special about this ?

It might also mention the end of the iPod instead of just saying at the start Apple discontinued the iPod product line on May 10, 2022. Since it probably made them some money, even competing with phones one would imagine there's still a market for a player that does one thing and does it well.

Claverhouse (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)