Talk:iPhone/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Canadian Release

I didn't want to put this in without references, but I work for Rogers in Canada, and we are to be the sole providers of the iPhone in Canada, with a tentative November release date (only info I got was Nov/07). No pricing details have been announced. If we do a news release I'll put it in, but until then I won't--Lostcause365 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I gather from numerous Googling, most websites including AOL Financial [1] say that the release of the Apple iPod will be in Q4 2007 (most likely before the European release). Anyhow, Apple announced that it will not release a CDSM version of the iPhone, and seeing as how the only carrier that supports GSM is Rogers Communications, it is a 99.99% bet that the iPhone supplier will be Rogers (can never be too sure). CuffX 8:27, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

What a horrible article

It reads like a marketing brochure for the iPhone rather than an encyclopaedic entry. There is no criticism section, no competitor section, no background...

I have nothing against the iPhone and wish it every success. But this article has obviously been largely written by Apple employees or fans.

Come on people. You can do better than that. If you are blinded by affection, then at least try to encourage contributions from NPOV writers. Or even opponents. It would balance up the article. (Ajkgordon 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Please read through the talk page here and Archives. The iPhone hasn't even been released yet, so how can it be criticized in verifiable reliable sources? Second, no, it has not been "largely written by Apple employees or fans," as will be obvious when you read the arguments in the Archives. Finally, please remember to assume good faith. If you have proper sources you think would contribute to the article, please feel free to discuss them here. -- Kesh 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of criticism that can be made about a product before it is launched. Happens all the time in the motor and other industries. Feature set, design, aesthetics... to name but a few can be validly criticised prior to launch. Doing a quick Google on "iphone criticisms" throws up over a million results so there must be some of note out there. I came here looking for a decent intorduction to the iphone and how it will compare to the rest of the market. The latter is not available. You're right about the good faith thing. But, man, is it sometimes soooooo difficult. (Ajkgordon 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

This is where you've gone off here. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a factual (which implies NPOV) exposition of a thing or concept. Criticism, as such, is by its very nature non-NPOV and, thus, has no place in an encyclopedia or herein. --The Outhouse Mouse 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NPOV, as what you said contradicts the very notion of NPOV. Criticism is often mandated by the NPOV policy. --C S (Talk) 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the critcism is speculative in nature, because the product is not out yet. And I'd rather not flirt with WP:CRYSTAL over it. Also, one does not need a Criticism section: let the fact speak for themselves. If you have specific points in the article that you feel are POV, please note them here, so we can make them more neutral. But, linking to various speculative criticisms doesn't strike me as neutral in and of itself. -- Kesh 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the criticism is speculative, does it then follow that most of the information in the article is too because the product is not out yet? I don't have specific points that I feel are POV because I came here to get information about a product I know little about. This article is not as balanced it it should be in my POV and as such is worth less that it should be. (Ajkgordon 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

The features released here are the one announced by Apple, and observed by the people who have had a chance to test an early prototype, and we may be quite confident they will be implemented in the final product. Any shortcomings however, especially in the software, might well be fixed before the products comes to market. It's not that Apple is not aware of them, and they have had the time between the announcement and the launch to fix them. Mahjongg 10:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be difficult and nonsensical to find criticism in the software especially around bugs and so on. I was thinking more about entries talking about its relevance in the market place, criticism about it just being a fashion accessory or gadget, technical specs such as no GPS or G3, battery life, and so on. These are valid criticisms that can be cited and included in the article. A list of similar comparable products would also be useful even though that conflicts with the purity of the message of invention that Apple are fostering. (Ajkgordon 12:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

There's plenty of valid criticism one can make of the iPhone even before it is released. One major criticism I've seen in newspapers is that AT&T's EDGE network is considered the worst among all its rivals. Pricing and the two year contract are others I see often. --C S (Talk) 16:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I would just like to add that I think the criticisms section should be brought back onto the article. When someone is researching to buy or just reading they wanna know whats bad about it too.

• • • As explained below, no content has been removed. It is all still in the article, if you read it. --C S (Talk) 04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Specific absorption rate measurements for the iphone?

Shouldn't they be included in the specifications, actually, shouldn't they be the no. 1 specification, how much radio frequency radiation our body is subjected to, and forced to absorb, with the various health issues involved? As an encyclopaedia we should make every effort to include such information. Ultimately who cares about battery times when the phone you are using might pose a high (or higher wrt others) health risk? VERY SERIOUS OMMISION. (I tried to find information on the web about it but it seems what with all the publicity around iphone the apple people (i wonder why...) are very hush hush about it, I only found pages refering to their getting a permission of their phone being in accordance with u.s. specifications on sar (which is kind of obvious since they are going public) but nowhere did I find a specific value...) Anyone here can help? 84.254.52.96 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's here but I can't make head nor tail of it! (Ajkgordon 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Oh, and the complete FCC testing, with all documents, is located at the FCC's website. 66.41.203.91 05:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys great work, I'll try to figure out anything I can from these links and post it here. Like I said, with mobile manufactures now being obliged to mention sar in their specifications, and with a plethora of studies on the effects of mobile phones (ranging from the small to the very damaging to the brain and body), sar specification should one way or another find its place in the iphone too. Besides if the encyclopaedias raison d'etre is education and public awareness health issues should prioritized. There's no better way to force the mobile phone manufactures to push these limits to their minimums and ensurer our safety than raising awareness and thus competition. 84.254.50.69 01:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that SAR measurements could be included in the article as part of the technical specs just like they could be on any phone, Wikipedia is not a soapboc WP:SOAPBOX. There is a separate article here [2] about SAR generally and the potential risks more specifically here [3]. --AJKGordon 10:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Points well taken. I am not in the bussiness of advocating for or against anything and breaching wikipedia's policies, I just want the facts reported in a neutral point of view. And since the ipod is a few days from being launched and with all the media hype, the sar ratings should be part of making this article as complete as possible for all the thousands of people who will in the near future log in to wikipedia to be responsibly informed. I have still not had the time to extract the appropriate information from the links posted and I hope if I can't make it someone else will. 84.254.50.225 14:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I 've just added the SAR rating as mentioned on cnet.com. Someone please add the reference link properly because I don't know how to. 84.254.51.4 19:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

edits

how many edits has this article got? The special page has been disable since last year! 124.168.8.164 11:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2,801, with 1,036 different editors contributing to this article.[4] EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

After the announcement today, someone added a section just for youtube, I'm not sure that youtube deserves its own section, but there's nowhere else it fits in. Perhaps there should be an "applications" section. Hemidemisemiquaver 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Done.  hmwith  talk 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Return Policy

Someone might want to mention this, as it's worth noting, in the article:

The iPhone will have a different return policy than the rest of AT&T's devices. A 14-day return period rather than a 30-day period, and customers will be charged a restocking fee equal to 50% the cost of the device upon return.

does anyone know when iPhone will be released in australia? Lillianspall 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

67.175.179.166 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)According to the Apple website the return policy is 14 days but the restocking fee is only 10% IF it is opened. If it's not opened, there is no restocking fee. 67.175.179.166 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Also wants to charge the $175 [5] early termination fee] if you want to cancel your contract but do not want to (or can not) return the phone.

Skitchthg 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

iphone hype section

I think we should add a section aboujt iphone hype and all these websites and media buzz about the iphone --Zayani 07:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not sound terribly encyclopedic. Would it improve the quality of this article? Bassgoonist 07:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in the US, and I don't remember there being much hype. But, again, no one I know is really into Apple products, so maybe that's it.  hmwith  talk 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in US too, and there is plenty of hype in the major newspapers, e.g. NY Times [6]. It's actually pretty incredible the amount of hype over this phone. If a section were to be added on it, one would have to be very careful to keep it encyclopedic; for example, sourcing to only encyclopedic type sources (like good newspapers and periodicals). On the other hand, there's no need to rush to do so. Time will tell how much of the hype is justified...the phone hasn't even come out yet! --C S (Talk) 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. The PlayStation 3 has a whole separate article just about the launch. Bassgoonist 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think there should be a section on hype/free publicity that apple has been getting for this device. Considering the limited amount of advertising they've done, the spotlight they've garnered is absurd.60.209.83.163 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A Hype section makes absolute sense. The phone's hype has been bigger than any 'gadget' I've seen in numerous years. I work in newspaper design and the number of iPhone teasers we've done has been a bit crazy.

new picture

Someone replaced the picture in the summary with one from the iPhone demo video. I think that the old picture illustrated how the device actually looks much better. The new one just looks like a rounded rectangle. Any other opinions? Hemidemisemiquaver 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

for now I reverted to the old image. Hemidemisemiquaver 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Sidney Bailey?

Is Sidney Bailey (the person used in several of the iPhone demos, and on the current top picture in this article) a real person? Just curious... — Epastore 03:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would guess an apple employee but it could just be a random name. I recall seeing John Appleseed as another name used, who funnily enough introduced Apples to parts of America. Coincidence? Andrewjd 23:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone ad song

does anyone know what the song that's playing in the background of the calimari, safari, etc. ads? Was it custom music like the switch ads? Anyone have links to just the music?

It's called "Perfect Timing," by a band called Orba Squara. I'm adding it to the article. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved:

Gartner, an information and technology research group, has criticized the iPhone from a security standpoint, advising business and IT professionals to avoid the phone for its lack of a firewall.

here from the article as it seems from this that it is from a biased source and lacks actual relevance as opposed to simply being part of a FUD campaign. WAS 4.250 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if the iPhone runs OSX and OSX includes PF (firewall), shouldn't it follow that the iPhone does have a firewall? 71.162.255.53 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If the iPhone runs a version of OS X, and the version of OS X that the iPhone runs includes ipfirewall (not PF), then the iPhone would have a firewall. If, however, the version of OS X that the iPhone runs, as opposed to the version that Macs run, doesn't include ipfirewall, then the iPhone might not have a firewall. You'd have to ask somebody in a position to speak officially for Apple on this matter to find out whether the iPhone's version of OS X includes ipfirewall or not. Guy Harris 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt if it matters whether the Iphone has a full firewall, as there won't be any apllications to install that need to be "firewalled". As long as each module that communicates to the outside world trough the network connection is limited to only have ports open for it's basic functions, and nothing else, and this setup cannot be changed, then the availability of a "real firewall" might be a moot point. Normally a firewall is used to be able to add "possibly unsafe" applications, applications that use the network connection and who might be corrupted, or that hat accept communication from all the ports. In those cases, a firewall is used as a "last defence", as a "goalkeeper" so that these "bad" appications cannot communicate over ports they should not communicate over. However, in a "closed system" as the Iphone, such a "last defence" might not be necessary at al, because each (unchangable) application guards its ports all by itself, acting as a "mini firewall" for itself. Mahjongg 23:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Until a vulnerability is discovered. Cisco routers are closed systems, but vulnerabilities get exploited in them from time to time. Has Apple announced how software updates will work? Anyway, it's a good thing that all iPhones come with unlimited data plans. I just wonder how long it will take to download a 100MB OS update through EDGE... Hemidemisemiquaver 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article candidate by Friday?

Anyone up for a push to get iPhone into featured candidate status in time for the launch on Friday? A quick review of the article looks ok, the two areas that seem to need work are criteria 1c (there are some unsourced statements that need to be cleaned up) and 1e (the article is still fluxing a little bit because of the upcoming release). Before anyone nominates it, I'd appreciate some of the really gifted FAC-folks going through it with a fine-tooth comb. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is impossible. One of the criteria points is to have a stable article, and since the product hasn't been released yet, this is not fulfilled (especially considering that on launch day this article will be bombarded from everywhere). -- ReyBrujo 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What you can do, though, is make it a good article, at least to have a revision to fall back in case vandalism becomes outrageous (the article is very likely to be linked from the news section of the main page). -- ReyBrujo 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ReyBrujo. Article is not stable and will only be more unstable over the next few weeks. Additionally, a successful FA candidate is supposed to be thorough in coverage. I don't believe this article fits the bill. For example, iPod is a much better article but failed several months ago due to one perceived weakness in coverage of the iTunes "lock-in" issue. There are already a couple issues dealing with criticism I can think with regard to this iPhone article, not to mention all the unresolved questions. It seems to me that with articles on consumer products, especially ones that can be polarizing (as often Apple products are), reviewers expect complete coverage on all the potentially negative aspects. --C S (Talk) 06:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Rey, having a featured article by Friday isn't happening. However, I do think the idea of creating a good base article is a great idea, and then the article can just be watched over for the most part after the launch. This is definitely the kind of thing that will attract vandalism. --Nyeguy 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New reception section

I think the Criticisms should be merged into a new receptions section that will talk about what the critics said about the iPhone, both good and bad. What do you all think? Mahanga^Talk 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

no. there should be a separate criticism section to counterbalance the free marketing hype that wikipedia is providing for the iphone. --75.11.69.57 17:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How is providing information about the iPhone marketing hype? People have to purposefully search for the iPhone article either in Google (or other search engine) or Wikipedia itself. Is providing information to people seeking relevant information on the iPhone providing an advertising service for Apple? Are the articles on Walkmans, BMWs, and F-16s, providing "free marketing hype" for Sony, BMW, and Lockheed Martin?

On Wikipedia we aim to follow the WP:NPOV policy. If you believe (as I imagine you do), that this article is providing too positive an image of the iPhone, that is only a reflection of the image portrayed by the mainstream media sources we have used. Should we seek to purposely portray a negative view to counterbalance this, in your opinion? --C S (Talk) 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he's just being a troll, which is why I ignored him. But I think the article would be better by having a reception section, sort of how Wii#Reception incorporates the critics' response, both good and bad. Mahanga^Talk 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article would indeed be better with a reception section, the following links include pros and cons. But overall, the critics' responses were positive. -DMCer 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1639068,00.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/30/MNGSCQOVMV1.DTL&feed=rss.news http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070626/the-iphone-is-breakthrough-handheld-computer/ http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026018&pageNumber=1 http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/features/iphone-making-the-pda-sexy-again?page=2&zoom=

http://www.apple.com/iphone/usingiphone/activation_small.html

http://www.apple.com/iphone/usingiphone/activation_small.html This video from apple states that, Apple iPhone could work with corporate email networks. I've marked a {{fact}} tag for that criticism. Someone, please find a suitable/reliable reference, quote it and remove the tag. Mugunth 05:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exclusivity

What does it mean the phone is exclusive to AT&T Mobility? Is it that you can only call, email, or browse the internet with their wireless network, or you have to be a subcriber to them just purchase the phone at all, which would seem ridiculous. Rodrigue 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be a subscriber in advance to buy one, but buying one entails signing a 2-year contract with AT&T. So it goes without saying that until the exclusivity contract runs out (5 years), you won't be able to use the iPhone with any other mobile service, although since the phone uses SIM cards, I wonder if some enterprising hackers might figure out how to unlock it. Hemidemisemiquaver 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

-The articles sited as a reference in notes 33 and 86 don't say anything at all about a "pre-paid plan" for people who have bad credit-

Is Prada vs. iPhone really a controversy?

Currently the article contains a subsection of the "controversy" section, titled "LG PRADA controversy". While I was rewriting it, I was having great difficulty finding sourcing. There were two quotes which turned out be from a writer's reporting rather than statements from LG. So I wanted to find the original statement from LG. Well, it turns out that except for a brief mention on the Telecoms Korea website, there hasn't been any more news on this. Sure some blogs and blog-type reporting exists, but none by mainstream media.

LG has remained quiet, and in fact, I've not been able to find a followup story on Telecoms Korea. It raises the suspicion that while certain groups of tech bloggers are making some noise about this, this is really not newsworthy. The next subsection is on the Cisco thing, which is certainly just a big contrast to the Prada thing, which I don't think many people even know about.

So my question is, where is the controversy? There was a buzz when some Apple-related, tech sources picked it up, but it seems to have died down. In the history of iPhone coverage thus far, it seems to be only a small blip. --C S (Talk) 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove future product tag at 6:00

Get ready everyone, to remove that "expected or future product" tag at the top of the article at 6:00 today!!! =) 69.108.94.164 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Online Activation

The iPhone is activated online through iTunes. In which section should this info go? --IanCavilia 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I just realized the article has been semiprotected for over three months. Considering the launch, I believe we should unprotect it. Sure, vandalism, but also good edits. Anyone against it? -- ReyBrujo 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Critisism

Considering it's the iPhone, is this section really necessary? It should really be done all Apple pages. Who cares if some M$ fanboy has some gripes. 67.173.249.150 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the critisism section is neccessary for the article to be unbiased, and to represent both the pros and cons of the iPhone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eggness (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Even the iPhone is not perfect. We need to show both sides of the coin to create a good article. -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Even"? The iPhone might be amazing if it were a $200 phone, but at 599 US DOLLARS it's way too much for what you get (and just as importantly what you don't get). 71.203.209.0 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I paid $599 and it has been worth it to me. I absolutely love it.

I seriously hope the first poster was joking. Wikipedia is not here to market the iPhone, and as there are valid criticims, it would be biased. Also, MS fanboy? Me thinks if youre looking for a fanboy to whine about, you need look no further than the mirror. You might have seen that in your post, although I suppose your head is probably too far up your own ass to have read it.

EDGE is NOT 2G

Stating that EDGE is a 2G technology is incorrect. EDGE is classified as a 2.5G/2.75G technology. The true 2G data technology is GPRS.

Who cares? Base of EDGE is GSM which is 2G, and UMTS is 3G. So, its pretty irrelevant if we are calling boosted gsm data transfer as 2G or 2.xxG --Zache 12:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually EDGE is classed as 3G, because it is of high enough speed. 2.5/2.75 are commonly used, but non-defined colloquial terms. This "no 3G" thing about the iPhone is FUD, FUD with a reason (slower network speed)... but still FUD. 63.81.152.130 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its still good to be accurate though! =) 69.108.92.112 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's classified as 2.75G and not 2.5G as the article states.. EDGE is way faster than gprs..

iPhone picture

I don't mean to criticize the person that uploaded the current picture, but perhaps someone could upload a better one. Two problems with the current one: 1) glare near the top of the iPhone, which also reveals a smudge 2) "slide to unlock" is partially shadowed. --C S (Talk) 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there could be some copyright issues by putting a photo from the Apple website. The "Sidney" picture was taken before the iPhone release by somebody outside a display case. Unless some Wikipedia person who actually has an iPhone takes a picture of their iPhone, there could be "free licensing" issues as well. The iPhone displayed before release was there for everyone to see. 69.108.92.112 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Apple iPhone

Should be the correct title. I am happy with the disambiguation re:Linksys, but iPhone should redirect to "Apple iPhone" which is the brand name of the device.--Cerejota 15:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate, Apple refers to it simply as 'iPhone'. http://www.apple.com/iphone/ has no mention of "Apple iPhone", and I haven't been able to find an example of that phrase anywhere on Apple.com, so... iPhone is the correct name. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not follow the "official" name, but what people will use. Our responsibility is to our readership not Apple. People often do prefix products that way, e.g. Toyota Camry not Camry. This "rule" has not been enforced for many Apple related articles such as iPod and Macintosh, since consensus is many people do not use the prefix "Apple". The latter article used to be at Apple Macintosh in fact. The reason I put "rule" in quotes, is that it is not one (although some have insisted before it is). To bring up an example I brought up before in a different context, F-16 is not titled Lockheed Martin F-16; strangely, F-16 redirects to F-16 Fighting Falcon which is a mistake, like redirecting Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton. The Walkman article is not titled Sony Walkman, etc. Jet fighters and electronic consumer products seem to share a similarity in that people often do not use the manufacturer name, while with cars people often do. So I don't believe it's necessary to move the article to Apple iPhone (as I once did). --C S (Talk) 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, I just unprotected Apple iPhone, been protected for six months or so. So, watch that page as well, just in case someone begins an article there. -- ReyBrujo 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of MMS

Why is there no mention of the fact that the iPhone cannot send MMS (multimedia messages)? I think the majority of people would be surprised to discover this as most if not all new phones have this capability and it is an important criticism of the phone. See this link for more info http://www.cnet.com.au/mobilephones/pdaphones/0,239036203,339279031,00.htm Danielcohen 04:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Criticisms section does mention this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Third-Party Apps

The section on Applications says "At the WWDC 2007 Conference on June 11, 2007 Apple, Inc. announced that the iPhone will support third party applications via the Safari web browser." It's true that Apple said that, but I'd call it marketing spin. It would be more accurate, IMHO, to say that the iPhone does not support third party applications, but one can make a web site that behaves in some respects like an application and runs in Safari.--Jwwalker 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I fixed that. =) Stealthkey 02:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rate Plans

Is the table containing the rate plans of the iPhone really necessary? Seems more like advertisement than encyclopedic. Amazingracer 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Wow this article will need to be completely reworked when the hype dies here. Amazingracer 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Exchange and the iPhone

This article should be updated to remove the reference to Microsoft Exchange. The article implies that the iPhone can connect to Microsoft Exchange as well as using IMAP4 and POP3. In fact, the only ways the iPhone can currently connect to Microsoft Exchange is though IMAP4 and POP3. The way the article is phrased, it give the impression that the iPhone can connect to Exchange servers the way most smartphones can (though Exchange ActiveSync). This is not the case and gives the false impression that this device can natively exchange messaging, calendaring and contacts data with Microsoft Exchange.

Well it gives that impression because it does use ActiveSync. See here. Also sign your comments! Amazingracer 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well according to that article its supposed to support Actice Sync, but I just hand my hands one and it clearly stated it must have IMAP support in the setting menu. I do not know if there is a difference though. This may need some more digging. Amazingracer 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for an archive?

It may be time for another archive of the talk page, as it is getting pretty long, and hardly any of these discussions even deal with the article. I do not know how to archive a talk page, so maybe some one with a little know-how could perform the task? Cheers. Amazingracer 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I did do some archiving yesterday, but obviously it wasn't enough. One thing that could be done is to set up some auto-archiving. I've used MiszaBot I in the past with good results. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AutoArchiving maybe a bit confusing to some users. A manual archive would probably be the way to go, but not usre how that works. Some of the threads from the top could probably definitely go. Amazingracer 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As always criticism is being erased

Like in the PS3 article criticism is being treated as vandalism. Have some respect, please, this is an encyclopedia not an advertising website. Apple should have some respect and leave this encyclopedic article alone.66.201.169.49

As mentioned elsewhere in this talk page, the criticism section was more thoroughly incorporated into the article, which helps preserve a neutral point of view. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that criticism from reliable sources is, of course, welcome. First-hand criticism isn't appropriate for inclusion, though. Friday (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No criticism section, very interesting, how come there is such a large one for Nike Inc. and even iPod? Obviously the iPhone doesnt allow you to remove and replace the battery yourself, isnt that a fair-dinkum criticism? 203.214.98.123 08:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Read four sections up in the Controversy discussion. The criticism for the iPhone has been integrated into the rest of the article. As an example, the battery is the first paragraph of the Other section. The lack of a criticism section does not mean that no criticism is included. It just means that this article is better written than the ones that includes the criticism section. Well, at least in regards to how it handles criticisms. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken Apart

Reports from various sources say that the IPhone is being disassembled for various reasons, from wanting to find out whats on it to finding ways to hack it. Would a section on this be appropriate? Bladesofhalo 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blades, I was just reading this on Yahoo! Maybe in Reception. I have some great sources on this info if you would like, such as this.  hmwith  talk 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Processor is Samsung S5L8900

According to this article:

http://sikod.com/blog/2007/07/02/iphone-launch-mania/

The Ipod Nano2G reportedly has a similar processor; namely the S5L8701.

82.74.225.106 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many iPhone release day photos

There is an excess of release day photos, which seems a symptom of over-exuberance. I will remove two of them, although I don't think we even need one. People should keep in mind that this is meant to be an encyclopedia article, and we need to keep proper perspective. Having these photos, with captions explaining how buyers are applauded, may seem relevant and important now, but a year down the line, it will appear dated and fanboy-ish. --C S (Talk) 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Better having free images of people queuing than fair use images of the same phone time and again. However, I am not against removing them. -- ReyBrujo 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You left the crappy New York one up but took my San Diego one down? My photo was on iReport on CNN!! http://www.pbase.com/ahuse/image/81387564 Now I'm all verklempt! 1DmkIIN 06:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I believe you're being humorous here, but just in case you are truly overwrought with emotion, let me be serious. It's great when a professional photographer takes the time to upload an image to Wikipedia, and I commend you for it. Unfortunately, I'm hard-pressed to see why a photo of a couple iPhone buyers leaving an Apple Store is appropriate for the article. I can see why it might provide a nice "human-interest" angle to a news story, but that is different. --C S (Talk) 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

lol dont worry about it. I could care less. 1DmkIIN 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Service availability: which one is it?

There seems to be a little bit of a contradiction in two sections of the article:
From section "Pricing and Availability": The iPhone may be purchased with a two-year service plan with AT&T[30] or pre-paid month to month at a slightly higher rate.
From section "Dispute", subsection "Release": iPhone is only available for those who subscribe to a two-year AT&T service plan[26] unless they have poor credit, in which case they can use a pre-paid plan.
So which one is it? Is there an option that can be made freely, as the first sentence indicates, or is it only made available if one meets certain prerequisites (poor credit, which would need to be expanded upon, imho)? Redux 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What about iPhone Developers?

Should another page be created for information pertaining to developing web applications for the iPhone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelspivey (talk • contribs).

I don't think that is worthy of an article at this time. -- ReyBrujo 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

technical specifications

I can't add it myself, because I'm a new user, but how about adding technical specifications to this entry. I have confirmed iPhone technical specifications on my site, and you're welcome to stick them in the wikipedia entry. See http://www.iphonedope.com/index.php/Tech_specs Skitchthg 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

bad article

This article is as bad as Al Gore's. Thislove fest needs to be tempered with opposing POV.

There needs to be a section of how these things are messing up wifi routers by spamming requests for addresses.

technical issues

I see the discussion above about having a critism section or a controversy section, but what about a technical problems section such as the article for Xbox 360 has. Things such as [7] could be included. Fineric 20:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would wait. The Xbox 360 harware atricle exists because it gained a reputation for high hadware failure rates with some saying it may be 33.33% (1 out of 3). As far as I know the iphone does not have this type of raputation yet. It should also be noted that none of the other video game consoles have this type of article either showing that a sepearte article for problems is the exception not the norm. As it stands now I think intergration into the article is the better choice. --69.156.204.164 06:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Change headphone information under package contents.

The headphones included contain a microphone on the cord. They also contain a button that serves many purposes while using the phone's different modes. It should be pointed out the headphones included are different than the ones that are included with an iPod. Bombadier337 01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, can't believe that slipped through the crack. Amazingracer 15:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Replace MacWorld images?

Since so many people have the iPhone, wouldn't it be better to have a current photo of the iPhone (with the AT&T Service name rather than the Cingular service name)? --GrayApple 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Why this article doesn't have a controversy section? There is a lot of controversy revolving iPhone: usage of single service, inferior battery management, load of publicity for apple, inferior memory space etc. A simple google search is enough! --18jahremädchen 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all in Missing common handheld features. =)  hmwith  talk 13:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the missing common handheld features is not the only place that controversies and criticisms are stored in the article. This article was unbalanced in the manner it presented the positive and the negative aspects of the iPhone. Prior to my integration the criticisms for the iPhone was buried down at the bottom of the article after a significant percentage of the article. The criticisms also largely mirrored the format of the features section so it was redundant to have two sections that covered the same thing when the features section could be used to cover both. There's a couple of edits by Gomm mixed in as well, but here is where I integrated the criticisms into the features section: [8]. Additionally, here is where I moved the "Controversy" section into the history section: [9]. As you can see, there wasn't any information lost, it was just integrated into the article itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the diffs, but I do think the current version does an excellent job of being neutral; the features are being mentioned alongside the complaints. Good job. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you did a great job of integrating the section into the article. It took me a second to realize it, however. Upon initially glancing at the page, I felt like it had been removed (besides the missing features), since that's a common thing that happens in many articles. Sorry about that, and thanks for the great job!  hmwith  talk 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my exact thought. Most of the articles have a "controversy" section in the bottom. But as I read more of it, it is not so bad :). Good job!--18jahremädchen 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just part of my campaign to end Wikipedia's reliance on controversy/criticism sections to convey "negative" aspects of an article's topic. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The best articles tend not to have a criticism or controversy section, although sometimes there can be a good reason for it. It not only stifles good writing but ends up creating a kind of internal "POV fork", where one side edits one part of an article, while another edits the other part. I believe if you look at the Featured Article nominations, one of the usual things done is to remove these sections and merge them into the whole of the article.

One tendency with criticism sections, particularly ones that look like bullet lists, is that a lot of things end up in it that just is not important. The same goes with "trivia" sections. Why should a biography on some notable person have a "trivia" section? There really is no good reason, and the usual practice there too, is to try and merge it, if important, into the main body of the article.

The article reads a lot better as a whole, so thanks to Bobblehead for the cleanup. --C S (Talk) 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"That's all in Missing common handheld features" - Maybe it used to be, but no such section exists currently. — Red XIV ^(talk) 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

missing features expansion

certain missing features should be added that would be surprising or very distressing for certain common uses of the iphone: i believe these should easily verified by an owner of an iphone. with at least a $1800 obligation, this is a crucial topic for readers of the iphone, presumably not existing users. this is a much more an important topic on this topic than on almost all other entries because it is not obvious.

no video or flash on the camera - quite unusual in any phone.

no etching on the glass or tactile feedback on phone. not usable without looking at keyboard or by the blind.

i believe you lose ipod and web functionality if you no longer subscribe to the att plan, for example, if you need to replace the iphone with another type of phone for any reason with a phone on the same number (you'd have to pay an upgrade) can anyone verify whether your iphone is useless when your plan or the phone used on the plan ends. again, can you still listen to your music, video, and the web if you don't continue the plan?

since the iphone was launched in summer, this is not yet an issue. however, calls or other usage of the iphone is not possible without taking off your glove (like in winter) this is not always easy or quick, or even possible. i think this is a unique issue with the iphone and not expected.

the 2g network is reported to be very slow compared to expectation ... does att have the capacity to support millions of extra users? should users expect this to degrade significantly during their contract? (this topic may not have any source or be verifiable.)

there is no camera-less version. some large corporations will not let you carry these types of phones into their buildings.

no user or password storage for automatic login of web pages.

-- despite this list, the iphone is a beautiful device Radrad 06:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it doesn't record video, or let you record voice memos, or let you use MP3's as ringtones. I thought these were all pretty standard features in top-end phones nowadays, especially the MP3 ringtones . Not having a flash or a light or an onboard speaker is a shame, but I suppose those aren't quite standard. 2 Megapixels is okay but some cameraphones go higher, and there's no mention of things like autofocus. Presumably it doesn't have them. If it doesn't support those cool stereo bluetooth headphones, you can choose to listen to your music in stereo with the wired headphones, or use a mono bluetooth headset, but you can't combine the two, so some people would have to carry around two headsets, one for wireless phone and one for music.

The unit is likely to experience some serious battery wear with that big backlit display, so the fact that the battery can't be replaced by the user is a worry: If the battery "goes" on a combined unit, you lose your MP3 player AND your personal organiser AND your phone all at once, and if you send the unit back to the factory before it completely packs in, then you're left without those things while you wait for it to be sent back. Some people can't afford to be without their phone, which is why phone manufacturers usually allow the user to replace the battery themselves.

Regarding backup, what software and devices does the iPhone synchronise with? Does it exchange data with non-Apple organiser software and devices? I'd prefer a top-end personal organiser to support IR connectivity, I used to use an OCR textreader pen to swipe text and upload it to my Palm over infrared, I guess this won't support those sorts of legacy devices.

Not having a memory card slot probably isn't so much of a problem considering that you already have four or eight Gig of memory, unless you tend to move and backup the organiser files or MP3s by card. But it does mean that you can't buy the four Gig model and then turn it into the eight Gig version at a later date by popping in a bigger card. You'll have to decide how much memory you'll want before you buy the device.

Lack of buttons is annoying, especially since the "buttons" issue was arguably one reason why the Palm organisers succeeded and Apple's Newton organiser failed. The very successful iPods had a very tactile interface. I'd personally find a touchscreen-only device annoying to use, touchscreen is fine for data input, but for simple things like jumping between tracks or signalling yes/no, next/last, forward/back, answer/ignore, it's nice to be able to move your thumb instinctively to a button and clicketty-click. If my phone goes off in an inappropriate setting, I want to be able to shove my hand into my pocket or bag and answer or reject the call immediately, without having to fish the phone out, face it towards me and point at a screen. ErkDemon 13:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a chat room, this page is for working on the article. Your points above, while well taken, really belong in a forum somewhere and not here. If you can think of a way to convert any of that into something that will improve the article, that'd be great, but I think you'd be hard pressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed "heat sensitive" touch screen statement

Changed "No stylus is needed, nor can an ordinary one be used, as the touch screen is sensitive to heat emitted by skin," to "Because the screen is a capacitive touch screen, no stylus is needed, nor can one be used," and added cite to How Stuff Works iPhone article. I could find nothing in the original Pogue article citation to support the statement that the screen was heat sensitive. Woodega 01:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No heat is needed, just an electrically conductive object, (which is electrically connected to the metal outer shell of the IPhone) touching the screen. Note that the claim that an IPhone cannot be operated with gloves is only valid when the gloves are perfect electrical insulators. Gloves that are made conductive should work. Mahjongg 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No electrical connection between the toucher and metal exterior is needed. My iPhone is clad in one of the rubber InCase thingers, so there's no connection between my hand and the phone's exterior, but it still works fine. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a direct electrical conductive pathway is needed between the "finger" and the body of the device depends on the technology of the capacitive touch screen technology used. generally speaking the technology detects a capacitor created between the conductive foil behind the glass of the touch screen and the finger placed on the glass. Through this capacitor a small amount of high frequency current can flow from the foil outward. The capacitance that is created by the finger|glass|metal foil is very small, so a high frequency signal is normally needed to detect it. The electric current flowing through this capacitor can either flow back to the device through the body and the other hand which is holding the device, either through a direct conductive path, or through a capacitive connection made by the other hand and the body of the device (which capacitance will be comparable to the capacitance of the finger|glass|metal foil capacitor), or the electrical energy can radiate out, where the body of the person is acting as an antenna. In either case the current flowing through these finger capacitor(s) can be detected, and used to detect where the finger(s) is/are touching the screen, but -only- if the "finger" is electrically conductive and presents a relatively large area that can act as the "capacitor plate". Hence touching the screen with an electrically conductive stylus does not work, because the created surface area is too small to create a detectable capacitor. A glove made out of an electrically conductive material -will- however create a capacitor that will be detectable. Mahjongg 19:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No Wikipedian photos?

Is there not a single Wikipedian with an iPhone and a camera who is willing to take a better photo of the device than the ones from MacWorld Expo? — Epastore 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone and AT&T Contract

Apple Computer has a five year agreement with AT&T, until then, they will be the sole cellular provider in the United States. Jaimysessanna 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't seen this officially announced or documented anywhere, so a citation would be great. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard this from Paul Thurrott and Leo Laporte on the Windows Weekly podcast. Jaimysessanna 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo1973

Why is there a "See Also" link to the Neo1973? The way it is posted seems like an advertisement. I suggest it be deleted on the grounds that

• It is not mentioned in the article, unlike the LG PRADA
• There is already a link to "List of Smartphones"
• If we let it stay, it would only be fair to add the other 100+ smartphones to the "See Also" section.

I am now deleting it, but suspect it will pop up again, and think if it does, there should be discussion. 71.213.13.173 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

i dare say that someone originally mentioned it, but it was deleted by apple fans. The Neo1973 is a Direct Competitor using the Linux operating system. This is a notable phone in this discussion as it is very similar to the iphone, but open source, unlike the locked iphone. this link SHOULD be but back in. 86.128.227.189 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Overkill

The phone will be released on June 29th "in the U.S. at 6 p.m 'local time,' meaning that the Eastern Time Zone will have the iPhone three hours before the Pacific." Hey, I'm just as excited as everyone else, but isn't this detail taking it a bit too far? —Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What can you expect from fans? :-D -- ReyBrujo 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean obsessive fanboys. PickledJesus 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter fans have been debating the 21 July 2007 debut of the final seventh installment down to the exact second when bookshops open around the world and called each others' mothers nasty names when they couldn't agree. Compared to that, the almost religious iPhone attitude is pretty normal, see:

http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/and062107blog.jpg

I would say anything about iPhone fans (or for that matter Mac fans) particularly normally. They're an odd bunch, that's for sure, even if HP fans are stranger. What's there to debate in the Harry Potter release anyway? I was under the impression it was being released at exactly the same time all over the world Nil Einne 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just hoping that the first time zone to get HP7 slathers spoilers all over the internet before the last time zone gets it. Maybe even calling the stores and telling the cashiers. Kingoomieiii 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Send/recieve music or files over bluetooth?

Can someone please check to see if it's possible to send and recieve files (music, videos etc) using bluetooth? 90.224.152.178/HSB 2007-06-29

I quickly skimmed thru the official iphone manual and it says nothing about using bluetooth to transfer files to or from other bluetooth enabled devices. Am I the only you who thinks this is a _major_ drawback?

yes this would be a massive disadvantage for the consumer. However, i think that apple have purposefully not included this, as otherwise people would be sharing music and videos which would then sap money from itunes. I think this should be mentioned in the article. 86.128.227.189 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC) - Careful before slating Apple for this, don't forget most iTunes music is DRM protected at the moment - you may find it's a network restriction which may not be applied on other networks. Phooto 13:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) and checking the manual, it's an AT&T specific manual, so may well be different on other networks. Phooto 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

Okay, I just got an iPhone. (yay) Want me to take some pics of it and replace the main image with them?-Samnuva 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.- I'll put this at the bottom of the list as soon as i have a responce, i just have found that it is rarely noticed if it is in the middle of bottom of a talk page as big as this

But if you had, your question would have been directly under a plea for wikipedians photos of the iPhone. I would also add that for the people who regularly visit talk pages they go straight to the bottom - as I do. Andrewjd 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do take pictures of your iPhone, be sure to upload them to Commons, and add them to Category:IPhone so that they can be used across all the Wikipedia editions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for cartoon

The caption under the editorial cartoon near the bottom of the article says "citation needed." The cartoon appears to be from Brian Duffy, who is the editorial cartoonist at the Des Moines Register: http://data.dmregister.com/duffy/details.php?id=2007-07-01

Dr. T. 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone does not stream .pls MP3

Since iPhone does not stream .pls MP3, why is Jossi reverting the posts with this clarification? Stick with the facts!

Libertyforall1776 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What iTunes can do versus what the iPhone can do is a horrible comparison, as is calling iTunes the iPhones' big brother. Comparisons between the iPod and the iPhone are more accurate, and the iPod cannot do that either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Nano

Should this article mention the cascade of news articles now talking about an iPhone nano? 132.205.44.5 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hello"

Shouldn't the Hello advert section mention Apple's history with "Hello"? (like various Mac things) 132.205.44.5 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, could the "hello" section tell the story of how the entire concept for the ad (concept isn't the right word- this was a rip-off) was taken from an older short-film. from what i've read, the filmmaker was actually approached by apple with a request to use his idea (and compensate him for it) but when he refused, they decided to use it anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.222.8.173 (talk • contribs).

Synchronoss

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/news/iphone_activation_synchronoss_070907/

this would seem to the appropriate article to mention "Synchronoss Technologies, the company responsible for coordinating the activation of those phones between the iTunes interface and AT&T’s back office system"

Mathiastck 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Other platform support

In the article, under Other Platform Support, it says:

It is also worth noting that the iPhone is not compatible with any 64 bit version of Windows such as Windows XP x64 or any 64 bit edition of Windows Vista

I don't think that's a correct way of saying such a thing. Isn't it more decent to say something like:

Although Windows is a supported platform, the Apple didn't build in support for the 64-bit versions of Windows, like Windows XP x64 or any 64-bit edition of Windows Vista. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benedykt (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 July 2007.

Honestly, I don't see how this is worth noting at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Generation

Shouldn't there be more about the iPhonEration? There's a vaste amount of current culture enveloped in this device. The merger of the iPod with cell and Internet.

Scone47 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)scone47

The iPhone isn't the first phone with the internet. Those have been out for years. However, it was the second phone developed (and first widely advertised/released) with a screen that you can use your finger to control. That was it's big claim to fame, I suppose.  hmwith  talk 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the second finger-touchscreen phone, about the fifth touchscreen phone and about the eighteenth music/cell/internet device. Noteworthy indeed, Scone47...NOT! -- 195.92.40.49 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the first finger touch screen device, but it can likely claim to be the Multitouch enabled handheld device?

LG Prada/iPhone

• "[LG later claimed that Apple stole both the ideas and concept of the Prada phone.] However, the iPhone had been in development for almost five years and AT&T was contacted three years before."

Three things wrong with this statement - not including a lack of references - which really says nothing but just adds more text to an already über-verbose article:

1. It doesn't say how long the LG phone was in development, which is kinda relevant to the point, folks;

2. It doesn't prove - or even suggest - the iPhone's design was finalised before the LG's. Apple could conceivably have had many previous designs then decided to change it when they found out about the LG;

3. So AT&T were contacted three years before. And? About what? Approving the design? A nothing statement presented as partial evidence to discount a public claim from LG. Weasel words.

Fact is, we don't know, so why is there an "however" which attempts to undermine LGs overt claim? It isn't commentary, it's opinion and justifies the regular attacks on this article and many of its contributors - I'd delete it but I know it will be restored in 15 seconds and I'll get called a vandal. -- Delsource (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No negative reviews?

I'm kind of missing the NPOV here. Are you seriously telling me nobody has anything bad to say about this thing? That it really deserves all the hype it's gotten? Strange. ChrisStansfield 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are such reviews, you are most welcome to add material about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No kidding!

I didn't mean to be overly subtle- I was making the point that I feel there are POV issues here, and frankly, I haven't enough time or interest to start researching the iPhone any more than I've already been forced to do by the overwhelming media hype. ChrisStansfield 12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The critics section has been incorporated into the body of the article, so yes there were plenty of people who "had something bad to say about this thing", but their comments are spread around, not concentrated in one section. See the "As always criticism is being erased" section. Mahjongg 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release Date

Just a suggestion that the Australian release date is changed from 2008 to 2009 or 2008/2009, the recent news items in this country appearing due to the impending release in the US have revelase no Australian providers haven't even talked to Apple (It will probably be Telstra in the end though) and all the articles mentioned a pre 2009 release was unlikely.

I can't find a link at the moment to use as a source but other Aussies should be able to confirm this.

Update: Channel 9 News has just claimed it will be released in 6 months, around January... Not a direct comment from Apple though, perhaps leaving it at 2008 is best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeoRicen (talk • contribs).

There has been a lot of speculation Vodafone may due a deal which will cover many of their subsidiaries. Nil Einne 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Three is extremely interested in the phone. We so far the most likely Australian provider to have the iPhone. Telstra has already said no. Optus is sharing a fair bit of interest but doesn't seem so happy on Apple's conditions on web usage pricing. 124.168.28.42 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

However

I counted 10 instances of the word However. This is not an editorial, or an op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Quite. But don't dare delete them.... 86.17.211.191 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Droste effect picture

Wouldn't it be nice if the donator of the current Public domain iPhone picture took another picture of the IPhone displaying not the wiki page, but the current iPhone Wikipedia page with his own picture of the iPhone in it, effectively creating the droste effect, and also making the wikipedia user instantly sure of what the IPhone was displaying. At the moment, the picture is clearly displaying a wikipedia page, but it is a bit bland, and not instantly recognizable. Creating a new version with the iPhone displaying the same website page the user is looking at would be very nice! P.S the effect would not be completely recursive, but that would not matter too much. Mahjongg 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the picture you see today. I'll upload a new one as you suggest later...possibly showing the phone screen or Wikipedia as you suggest. FIshstick 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's a bad idea to show any wikipedia page in screenshots, at least if the logo is visible. It's common practice but it unnecessarily complicates the copyright situation. The phone screen would IMHO be a better idea Nil Einne 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I took, uploaded, and added the new picture in the infobox today, and can take additional ones in a similar setup if needed. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion - it would look better if it was cropped to remove the big black spaces. Also I think that the home screen (ie with icons) looks better as the infobox image than the phone running Safari. AndrewJDTALK -- 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uk release network

I wanted to add something along the following lines but am struggling, would appreciate if someone could do the honours

"Reports that a uk service provider has been chosen have been seen on numerous websites, including (http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/07/06/o2_wins_iphone_uk_contract.html)

It has been said that Telefonica's O2 has won the deal, these reports are, however, unconfirmed as of 16th July 2007

Danfoster20 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

iPhone applications

There are quite a lot of iPhone applications (websites really). There's a list over at http://wwww.iphonetweaks.net/applications/applications.php. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article? 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link. -Atamasama 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly indicate what is rumor

Rumors are included in the text and referenced as fact. Example, under 'Web connectivity', a referene is made to FINEEDGE. This is nothing but a rumor, but has been presented as, I quote, "This is probably due to the new "Fine EDGE" upgrades AT&T has been making to their network prior to the launch." should have started at the very least as "It has been rumored that ...", after all a mac rumor site has been referenced. Then I also want to bring up the danger, and ethic consequences of including rumors as this can mislead readers. What I really would like to see is a comparison between technologies, including theorethical and actually achieved numbers. Jdesmet 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut down on the reference links

I know Wikipedia is being used for advertising, but this is ridiculous. 83.77.220.39 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think references are a good thing. Most of them are just news articles and Apple talks anyways. =) 69.108.92.112 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to plain external links, the more references the better. -- ReyBrujo 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the links to other touchscreen phones certainly don't belong in “See Also”; this would be better served by inclusion in appropriate categories (as has already been done). —Cygfrydd Llewellyn 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vista Basic

I saw in the article it says Vista Basic isn't supported. Does anyone know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.114.27 (talk • contribs).

I can't find any evidence of this on the internet, so I'll remove that sentence barring a good reference. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This page needs to be archived due to its length, making some text obsolete and hard to navigate. Since I do not know how yet to archive, can another user do this immediately. T saston 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just set up auto-archiving, it'll get archived shortly when MiszaBot1 runs again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The archivebot is actively archiving here, and is configured to move conversations that haven't been active for two weeks out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Wow ... i dont think i have ever read a better advertisement than this wikipedia article...you know this is an encyclopedia folks..not a catologue. Zendainc 17:47, 23 July 2007 (EST)

Please see this discussion in the archives. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatic patching?

I've seen brief mentions that the iPhone can automatically download and install it's own patches but haven't found a reliable source. If true, I think that would be worthwhile to mention, particularly on the section entitled 'Exploits'. Anyone have any direct info on this? Ronnotel 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

IPHONE, OR I-SPY?

Thanks for removing the back door article about the spy phone, you must not let the americans in on this, good job you commy fools. I wonder, do you even care about your own rights? You are helping shape a great tomorrow and you will be judged because of it. I hope you have fun in hell bitches!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.119.123 (talk • contribs)

You may want to sell crazy somewhere else, I believe we're all stocked up here. mkthxbi! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to do some research. The iphone has a nice big back door built into it that up loads your info to web servers. Fact, but it will be erased because wikki is not built on facts.

Oh, come off it, Everybody who knows anything about this subject knew this was going to happen! With this kind of exposure, every company having to do anything with computer safety, and any (blackhat)hacker, would be expected to come down onto the IPhone like a cloud of locust, to be the first to be the one to find an "exploit" to remotely execute a program on the thing. And if that's possible anything goes, the rest is just a lot of talk.

You don't think for a moment that Apple did not realize that this would happen?

Actually, this is a good thing, no company, not even apple can create something as complex as the IPhone without any flaws in the software. Now that the IPhone has had this kind of scrutiny the "holes" can be plugged, and the IPhone will suddenly become much more safe.

The IPhone has an automatic update system in place, just for these kind of things, and for upgrades of the software. There will be many of these, the first one of them will fix these problems. Mahjongg 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

According to a Russian hacker team called “web-hack,” Apple’s much heralded and overly hyped iPhone contains “a built-in function which sends all data from an iPhone to a specified web-server. Contacts from a phonebook, SMS, recent calls, history of Safari browser” can be hijacked, as the VS iPhone blog reports.

In a white paper, according to the blog, the Russians indicate a possible “debug feature or a built-in backdoor module for some governmental structures,” i.e., the National Security Agency, the lead governmental structure responsible for violating en masse the constitutional rights of Americans.

Of course, it helps that “Apple has chosen AT&T, the best and most popular carrier in the US with over 62 million subscribers, to be Apple’s exclusive carrier partner for iPhone in the United States,” as the AT&T website boasts. As we know, the telecom leviathan illegally collaborated with the NSA to break the law.

“AT&T violated the law, and the rights of its customers, by allowing and assisting with the illegal wiretapping and data-mining. The government’s spying program on ordinary Americans would not be possible without AT&T collaborating in violating your privacy,” explains an Electronic Frontier Foundation FAQ. “EFF alleges that under the NSA domestic spying program, major telecommunications companies—and AT&T specifically—gave the NSA direct access to their vast databases of communications records, including information about whom their customers have phoned or emailed with in the past. EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, and gave the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte ‘Daytona’ database of caller information—one of the largest databases in the world.”

“The essential hardware elements of a (Total Information Awareness)-type spy program are being surreptitiously slipped into ‘real world’ telecommunications offices,” Wired News reported former AT&T technician Mark Klein as writing. According to Klein and a report published by the New York Times, the NSA-AT&T “Orwellian project… is vastly bigger” than previously figured “and was directly authorized by President Bush, as he himself has now admitted, in flagrant violation of specific statutes and constitutional protections for civil liberties.” In the meantime, Bush has signed a number of executive orders essentially granting himself the power of a Roman Magister Populi, a dictatorial master over the commoners.

Considering all of this, it makes perfect sense for the Apple iPhone to double as an NSA iSnoop device.

“Last year, it was discovered that AT&T has been secretly spying on Americans for the government,” notes Adam Frucci for the Gizmodo blog. “Maybe it still is. Then, just recently, it announced that it planned to spy on Internet surfers yet again, looking for pirated media files, presumably to the delight of the RIAA and MPAA. If you don’t want to get spied on and want to switch ISPs, guess what? Depending on where you live, you might not have any other options. And if AT&T snoops on all data passing through its network, most US Internet users will be affected, not just AT&T customers. It runs a significant amount of the backbone infrastructure of the Internet, leaving little traffic outside its grasp.”

But never mind. Apple’s iPhone is so cool and trendy a lot of buyers and potential buyers will shrug off the fact the device is—if the Russian hackers who reverse engineered the gadget are correct—a custom-made snoop device that routes your personal data right to an NSA Cray super computer.

Okay, this is exactly what I meant by "the rest is just talk". Somehow the IPhone provokes some people to get red-eyed crazy. Get a grip, and some normal perspective please. This bug will just be fixed with an automatic bugfix. It's not as if this is so much different from vulnerabilities of normal PC's, they find them and they fix them on a constant basis. Mahjongg 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! So it's OK to criticise MS PCs for their vulnerabilities but not Mac products, right? Too precious, too precious by half! It's time Mac aficionados woke up to the fact that Mac is not invulnerable. Criticism is a good thing. It makes software vendors work harder to fix problems. It would be a shame to see the iPhone die because of a major security flaw that had been hidden because the Mighty Apple could do no wrong. Get technology agnostic - it's the only way. --84.98.245.46 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said it's not OK to criticize "Mac products"? All Mahjongg has done is to disagree with the anon's claims that this bug in the iPhone is part of a NSA conspiracy to spy on iPhone users. No one here has said people can't criticize Apple products. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is perfectly acceptable to include criticisms and flaws in this article, as long as the flaw is sourced to a reliable source and is written in an neutral point of view (not in a crazies voice). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Iphone reported

I didn't post this directly to the article because it is missing a criticisms or problems section and any attempt to add one has been repeatedly shot down by supporters of the Iphone. Reports have been surfacing of people unhappy with Iphone screens with serial numbers starting with "7" which can be determined by entering the phone into "Field Mode" (which is accessed by typing: *3001#12345#*). Users have begun complaining on the Apple forums and elsewhere. I don't own an Iphone nor will I because its not my thing but I've watched this article and thought this might be a necessary add. Here are sources to back this up:

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/4675 http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1043463&tstart=0 http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=328862 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9027978&intsrc=hm_list http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=711

Oh and uhh....*puts on extra flame retardant suit*...flame away :) --Wootonius 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And also shot down by people who think that criticisms shouldn't be bundled into a "criticisms" section, but should be integrated with the article. See, for example, Talk:IPhone/Archive 4#Controversy. (I'm not arguing for, or against, that idea. I'm just noting that there are those who aren't opposed to criticisms of the item discussed by an article, but think it's better to have them throughout the article rather than in a special section, and that not all people opposed to a criticism section are "supporters of the Iphone".) Guy Harris 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Well, most of those aren't reliable sources, but the Computerworld one definitely is. So I don't see why a sentence about the screen issue couldn't be included in article... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Apple recently released new software (avaliable through iTunes) that fixed bugs and problems with the iPhone. So now the software on my iPhone is 1.0.1.

No nano

That was a rumor, (at least for now) and there was also a rumored iPhone shuffle. Which defeats the purpose, because one of the iPhone's main features is the touch screen, and an iPhone shuffle would have no screen..

Sounds less like a rumor and more like a joke.--211.28.215.112 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First iPhone disassembly

MacNN has obtained disassembly photos of Apple's iPhone in an effort to better learn about the manufacturing process that Apple engineers settled on for the cellular handset. The photos were provided by iFixIt, which sells parts for most Apple products. MacNN obtained an iPhone just after the device launched earlier today, and has posted photos of the device as it was unpacked from the original packaging and turned on to await activation.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/06/29/first.iphone.disassembly/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saleemz (talk • contribs) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Expansion of iPhone related information on Wikipedia?

In my opinion the information about iPhone on Wikipedia should be significantly increased. Meaning several of the sections of this article should be separate articles - e.g. one article dealing with the "history of iPhone" / "development of iPhone", another with "why we should all buy iphone" a third with "Is Steve Jobs messiah and iphone the new bible?" and so forth. The article as it stands is very good, but I miss separate artcles that goes more in detail on the issues, particularly about the history and development of the device.

With an average of 50-100 million hits for the word "iPhone" on Google for the past 5-6 months, such an expansion is certainly justified. Particularly in light of the many much longer articles found on wikipedia dealing with much less known or even partially irrelevant issues.

At news.google.com, "iphone" has currently about 20.000 hits, compared to about 30.000 for "George Bush", 15.000 for "Iraq war" and 14.000 for "Hurricane Katrina", and more than for the 2008 presidential election. - These are just some random examples, but the Wikipedia entries for all the mentioned keywords are certainly much much larger than that of the iPhone, and are divided into many separate articles, so why isn't this the case for the iPhone?

Also, the iPhone's broad coverage on the various news-media suggests that the phenomena is not just associated with the world wide web, but in the society as a whole. (And also on a global scale, e.g. Asia and Europe.)

So based on this, the information about the iPhone on the Wikipedia should, in my opinion, ideally be increased 10-fold...

Jakobat 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is this the biggest iFanboy ever seen, or what? 195.92.40.49 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, at the moment it's way to much information actually. Time is precious, and a encyklopedia does not need to contain every singel bit of information available about the subject. It's way better if it's only a short description, giving the user a quick overview. What should be included in this article? A short history and a description (size, weight, features etc) of the device, that's all that's really needed. Do we need the date for the FCC approval, pictures of people waiting in line, speculation about future functions etc. 2007-06-30

I think you misunderstand. I agree that the current "iPhone" article has a sufficient lenght, but I propose that other Wikipedia-articles dealing more in depth with various aspects of the iPhone should be included. If you e.g. work for Microsoft and don't want to read more than a brief introduction, then you don't have to, but I don't see a point in resisting the idea. I, for one, wanted to know more about the history of iPhone and therefore conferred the iPhone article. I didn't find the information I was looking for so I had to look elsewhere. In an ideal world I would have found more information on the Wikipedia.

As the English Wikipedia at present has about 1,8 million articles, compared to approximately 120.000 for the Encyclopedia Britannica (the largest in the world after Wikipedia), it is certainly justified to include subarticles to important subjects such as "iPhone". Or is your opinion that Wikipedia should start to shrink instead of being gradually expanded? Is it your opinion that there should be only one Wikipedia article related to e.g. the war in Iraq, instead of the current 20-40?

Finally: Please sign your posts.

Jakobat 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this reasoning for several reasons:

1. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". if we follow your logic in this respect, the Wikipedia would have to be a porn site.
2. Wikipedia is not where you do original research.. If you find a reliable and verifiable source with a "history of the iPhone", then we kosher. But I think the article as it stands is mostly a good reflection of where reliable and verifiable sources stand on this topic.
3. The iPhone, ultimately, is of much less encyclopedic value than say, Astrophysics: it is not a revolutionary product in any respect, as it uses technologies pioneered in other devices. Just because Steve Jobs is one of the greatest salesmen to ever exist it doesn't mean iPhone is specially encyclopedic. It is encyclopedic, and we must have a page for it, but a Macintosh 128k it certainly isn't, and this article approaches it in size.

--Cerejota 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with some of this, I think you are exaggerating it way too much. As I mentioned, iPhone currently has about 20.000 hits on news.google.com. - Most of these entries ARE from reliable and independent sources, and points to the "notability" of the "iPhone", particularly as a news event. I also know that the iPhone has been discussed for half an hour even on shows like Charlie Rose that mostly deals with political issues. (In that very show Walter Mossberg from WSJ claims he has never in the past 15 years experienced so much hype about a product). So there should be plenty of information available for new expanded wikipedia entries. I don't follow the "porn"-comparison; there's plenty of articles related to sexual issues on wikipedia... However, the word "porn" only has 100 million hits on Google, which is the same as that of "iPhone". Neither do I accept your suggestion that the only reason for iPhone's success is Steve Jobs' advertising. Even if Steve Jobs' propaganda was the only reason for iPhone's popularity, does it really matter? It isn't up to you or me to decide wether the iPhone is a pioneering device - commentators, experts and analysts should decide that - as well as the opinion of the general population. I do find it sad that there's so little information about the Macintosh 128K on Wikipedia. But we should also accept the fact that newer products and news usually requires a broader coverage than older (in a similar way as the 30-year war from 1618-1648 has much less coverage on wikipedia than the present Iraq war, despite the fact that the former in its time was much more important). Jakobat 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually most news reports as well as comments by experts and analysts I've seen have in fact said it's way, way overhyped and is nothing special compared to what's out there. In any case, justified or not, hype is a particular poor source for an article. There may be 20k hits on Google news but most of them are likely saying more or less the same thing since there isn't that much to say that isn't already said here. Google is a particular bad way to determined notability in any case for so many reasons which are discussed all over wikipedia. Also you still don't seem to understand the difference between notability and fame. Linda Lovelace the porn star may say be more famous then say Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo the president of the Phillipines, but it doesn't mean she's more noteable. In any case, if you're so convinced that there is a lot of distinct, reliably source information out there, why don't you write the new articles on your talk page and tell us when your done? Nil Einne 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That "most news reports as well as comments by experts and analysts I've seen have in fact said it's way, way overhyped and is nothing special compared to what's out there" seem like everything from a balanced view on your part. I did go through the major news media's reviews: WSJ, USA Today, TG Daily, SF Chronicle, NYT, Engadget, New York Post, CNET, CBS News, Boston Globe: they don't say what you say. I find it sad that the marked reception/reviews of the iPhone has not been mentioned/discussed in the article, because then someone like you couldn't have made statements like this as easily. Your point about Google being poor for notability I agree, but I am not so sure for Google News. Your examples are not the best ones as "Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" has 1915 hits on Google News and 2 million hits at Google, compared to 19 hits and 375,000 hits respectively for "Linda Lovelace". Wikipedia says the following about notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Linda Lovelace would certainly not fall into this category, but I cannot understand that iPhone would not. As for your remark about me writing my own articles on my talk page...? Why don't YOU start to write all your articles on your talk page, and tell me when you're done? English is not my native language, I have a limited knowledge of the iPhone, so I am not really up for the job. I came to this article not so much to find the specific information about how the gadget works (this I can find at Apple's websites) as to find out about its history/development, the reason for all the hype, the phenoma, its criticism and so forth. At present very little of this can be found in the article. And I am disappointed about that, that's the reason for my post(s). However, for the past days some 100 edits have been made to the iPhone article daily. Certainly if more iPhone related articles was created, they would be filled up with lots of text in no time. Even if the only references was the very one's that are present in this article (much more information can be extracted out of them). Jakobat 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the objections by people are coming from sentiment such that spelled out in Wikipedia: The world will not end tomorrow. Sure the iPhone may be the biggest technological development since the original Macintosh (I doubt it is, but let's assume for the purpose of argument). But we should wait until it is clear that it is, not only so we don't jump the gun, but so we will have more reliable sources and publications to use in creating an article. For example, with the Macintosh, it's not at all hard finding info on its revolutionary features and its history.

Certainly the hype is that it is the Next Big Thing, with Jobs apparently considering the phone the greatest thing since the Macintosh. According to a recent New York Times article, Asian cell phone manufacturers, who have been rather blase, after having seen the iPhone, are now rather concerned and moving fast to produce their iPhone clones. They seem to believe the iPhone and Apple's way of doing things will revolutionize the mobile handset industry. At this point, however, a lot of this is just speculation. We certainly don't need to take the extreme step of spinning off several articles. I know there isn't enough material to create high quality articles anyway. The number of Google hits is really irrelevant to these concerns. --C S (Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think all the "rules" mentioned by you and others should be followed one hundred percent. Even Wikipedia says that the rules (regarding Wikipedia:Notability) "... is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

There's also much confusion about them. There's even a rule that says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." (See Ignore_all_rules). Perhaps this is the case here?

Because if you look at it in a broader perspective, what I see is this: We have an Encyclopedia (English) called wikipedia that has some 15 times more articles/entries than Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia probably contains enough text to fill up a small library if it was written in books. And we have a topic - iPhone - that everyone talks about, that is mentioned in all news media (which qualify as reliable secondary sources), and yet Wikipedia provide only one small article about that topic.

IF more iPhone related article existed, then millions of people would read them. But the case now is that people like me would have to go into the wilderness of a delusional world wide web to find more in-debt information (which I certainy know exist from the random reading of various news articles) about the iPhone instead of on the Wikipedia. Today, for example, a few days after the release of the iPhone, many people are obviously curious about the consensus review on the iPhone and the marked reception. So where should one look to find information about that? Ah! Google, of course! - Certainly not Wikipedia!

One of the strenghts of Wikipedia (compared to e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), in my and many other's opinion, is actually its broad coverage of recent events (note that there's a difference between the iPhone as a device which may or may not be revolutionary, and the iPhone as a phenomena/event). So when the Virginia Tech Massacre happened, for example, I was pleased to confer Wikipedia to find the relevant information. Where else should I go? CNN? That would not have provided all the information I wanted. Wikinews? No. Of course, if all the editors of wikipedia had to wait for a few months before starting the mentioned article, the very strenght of wikipedia would have weakened. It is certainly true that in time articles will have the potential to get better and better as more reliable and high quality secondary source becomes available. But I don't see that as an argument to wait, because it is really an argument to wait forever.

If all the rules was to be followed 100%, then perhaps 70% of all wikipedias text would have to be erased, maybe some hundred thousand articles should be deleted and so forth. But yet millions of people read those articles and wants them there. And should all be decided by a small elite/community that belive wikipedia should be this or that, rather than letting it in some way evolve into a place where one can find reliable and in depth information about various issues? I guess perhaps yes...! But I don't know if I like it.

The ironical thing is that the iPhone article precisely because of its popularity seems to be more restrained from growing in size (via related articles) than articles for more irrelevant issues, which the Wikipedia is stuffed with. In this way the proportion of the latter relative to the former on Wikipedia would increase.

But I guess this is not the correct place to bring up a discussion about what wikipedia should or should not be. I seem to be unable to get my points through, probably for good reasons. I also suspect the objections to my statements is related to the fear that more text about the iPhone would serve as a marketing for the device and augment its sales (which I don't believe is true; it will only bring out the truth and counterbalance delusional commercials and marketing that people otherwise would get exposed to).

In any case this will be my last word in this discussion.

Jakobat 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a case for having a separate technical article on the exact specs, capabilities and compatabilities of the iPhone. Apple's own information is far too skimpy (their page doesn't even mention that the phone has a speaker for hands-free use), and given the interest in this unit, many potential buyers will want to know exactly what it does and doesn't do ... whereas casual browsers of the iPhone main page might not care. For instance, can you load miscellaneous computer files onto it, like a memory stick? These things are difficult to find out. ErkDemon 12:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT the right place for that kind of information. End of story. We can't be everything to everyone. Chris Cunningham 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-pay Plan for iPhone

It has been documented elsewhere that there are Pre-Pay plans for the Apple iPhone. http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/01/prepaid-iphone-in-a-nutshell/
It should be changed that the iPhone is not only available with a 2 year contract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmackaMuta (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

eh..help?

I have an iPhone, and do have pictures of it, but, I'm not sure of how to post images to articles. I'd be happy to post them if someone told me how to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avocados (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2007 11 July (UTC).

Headphone jack

In the page, mention is made of the headphone jack being recessed such that many standard headphone will not fit. It should be noted that simple modifications may be made to standard headphones that will permit their usage with iphone. Proper sourcing may be found at: http://iphone.macworld.com/2007/07/minor_surgery_enables_bose_hea.php

I've done it myself, and didn't need to spend money on an adapter to avoid wearing the painful apple headphone.

I don't have edit capabilities on the main page, so if someone could add this, that would be great.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.226.5 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC).

Sales numbers

The 270,000 iPhones sold is a misleading number. This figure released by Apple includes Apple and third party iPhone accessories and the article should note this. 67.169.34.85

The section on sales was edited but it is still not accurate. Apple Insider's news item is not accurate and should not be used as a source. Apple's own quarterly report is available here and it clearly states that iPhone sales were NOT 270,000 units.

The footnote on the Q3 2007 results states (6) Consists of iPhones and Apple-branded and third-party iPhone accessories 67.169.34.85

They specifically stated in the conference call that the 270,000 units number refers to iPhones exclusively. The $5 million in revenue includes related products and accessories, but is artificially low due to the 24 month delayed accounting Apple is using to record iPhone revenue. According to Apple, they moved 270,000 iPhone UNITS in the first 30 hours. This is fact, listen to the conference call if you don't believe me. It was a question that was asked specifically to clarify footnote (6) you are referencing. [10] do a search for "iPhone Expansion" it gives the transcript of when the comment was made. (I hate using AppleInsider as a source, but it was the first source I could find. However, I was listening to the call myself yesterday and they explicitly stated the 270,000 iPhones number many times.) Paul^C/_T+ 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the clearest quote I could get you:

Mixed in with Apple's Financial Results, Apple announced that they sold 270,000 iPhones in the first 30 hours of iPhone sales.

The number was included with their financial results product breakdown and vaguely listed as 270,000 "iPhones and Related Products and Services".

Despite this wording, during the conference call, Peter Oppenheimer clearly states that Apple sold 270,000 iPhones in the first 30 hours of sales.

[11] Paul^C/_T+ 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How's this one then:

In response to an analyst’s question, Apple noted that the 270,000 iPhones “sold” figure also included iPhones in transit to AT&T stores during the initial 30-hour launch window

Taken from http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/270000-iphones-sold-1m-target-by-end-of-q4/11067

Lars Holm 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Both sources are primary sources and the wording does contradict each other, but since most of the media is quoting from one of these primary sources, we might as well follow that too. It should be watched, though, if anything other information were to develop in the future. Roguegeek (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction... I am still under the impression that note 6 in the data summary only refers to revenues. It wouldn't make any sense for Apple to include accessory sales as "units", not to mention misleading and possibly get them in hot water with the SEC. I think including that quote in the reference is misleading. However, after further review of the conference call, it was stated that some of the 270,000 iPhones counted as "sold" (from Apple's point of view) were actually "in transit" to AT&T stores to replenish inventory. So in terms of actual phones sold to customers in the first 30 hours, 270,000 is somewhat overstated. At 5:37: ""How many iPhones did AT&T stores have left over?" Most of their stores were stocked out, but there were still some in transit to AT&T at the end of quarter. 270K includes some AT&T store iPhones." I think they are still technically counted as sales for Apple, depending on their contract with AT&T. Paul^C/_T+ 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

XYMPKI/Yahoo provisioning vulnerability

I noticed that the information regarding the two vulnerabilities I found (added, by the way, by someone else) has since been removed - is there any reason for this? There's still a number of people who appear to be posting traces of their Yahoo connections, apparently with live account details. I honestly think this is important information that should be noted, and I'm mildly concerned that someone has removed it believing that either it's not true (it is, feel free to verify) or through a misplaced sense of duty toward Apple or Yahoo. Details can be found at http://blog.dave.cridland.net/ 217.155.137.61 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Ah, gotcha, verifiability, and it's self-published. Would it help that the user who posted it is the editor of the RFC on SASL, and that it's been picked up by Ferris Research http://blog.ferris.com/2007/07/iphone-imap-vul.html and Tech.co.uk http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/news/anyone-can-access-your-yahoo-mail-on-iphone?articleid=1644128097 ? 217.155.137.61 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally verified David's claims. I've also gotten independent verification from Apple that this is a known bug. AFAIK, Apple has has yet to publish a vulnerability statement. Regardless, the attack is obvious and should be noted in the article. Kdz 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. As soon as you find a reliable source, then the vulnerability can be added to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only find a reliable source according to those rules by having someone else publish it and, it seems, not actually reference me as the source. Curious. Anyone can verify this quite easily. Speaking of reliable sources, you have no reliable source for stating that Yahoo offers Push-IMAP, at least in the sense to which you've linked it. That's in part because Yahoo's IMAP service does not use P-IMAP, nor has either Apple or Yahoo ever claimed it does.217.155.137.61 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As discussed in http://www.pdastreet.com/articles/2007/7/2007-7-27-First-iPhone-Vulnerability.html (see 3rd to last paragraph), Independent Security Evaluators (ISE) has independently discovered the XYMPKI vulnerability. With this, there are now three sources, two of which are clearly independent (ISE and Dave/Isode). Kdz 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

south africa

what is the source for the september07 release date for south africa Nicoli nicolivich 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X v10.5

iPhone runs Mac OS X v10.5, in case you'd like to post that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.220.81 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what it runs identifies itself as just "OS X", not "Mac OS X", and the version number is 1.x. Much of the code might be Leopard-vintage, but it doesn't run all of Leopard (it all has to fit in 4GB and leave room for your music, etc.). Guy Harris 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Third party apps

Should the article say something about the fact that a Hello World program can be run on the iPhone? just wondering... http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/07/iphack-becomes-.html Ben.yarmis 23:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that this is notable, along with the terminal application that was just released, for the simple reason that Apple/ATT do not want third party applications. It seems likely that they will release a software update to break these eventually, but the first third party application on the iPhone certainly warrants a mention. Pity that being a blog it's not a very good source.-Hemidemisemiquaver 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Los angeles times article taht mentions the hello world app, but not the terminal. [12] -Hemidemisemiquaver 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the info in the Applications section, sourced to the LA times article. I couldn't find any news stories about the terminal emulator, but since the code and process are GPL licensed and hosted on Google Code, I cited the project site. AFter all, you can't get much closer to a primary source than source code. IMO the terminal is more notable than hello world, since it's the first native app that has an icon on the home screen and actually can do something useful.-Hemidemisemiquaver 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Iphone Wifi Hotspots

Shouldn't we start listing some iphone wifi hotspots directories? I did a google search there are a few listings that appear when you type in "iphone wifi hotspots" (without the quotes) Daabomb

1) there is, as far as I know, no such thing as an "iPhone Wi-Fi hotspot" - there are just Wi-Fi hotspots, which devices supporting 802.11, including but not limited to, the iPhone, can use, so that's not something that belongs on the iPhone page.

2) Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, so it's not clear the link would even belong on the Wi-Fi page;

so I think the answer to the question is "no". Guy Harris 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Electrically conductive gloves

Some people might wonder why I have stated in the touch screen section that the IPhone can be used with gloves, but that special "electrically conductive" gloves must be used to operate the IPhone. The fact is that really the only reason that the IPhone cannot be operated with gloves on (if you ignore that wearing normal gloves will make your fingers thicker) is the fact that they are normally made from an electrically insulating material, and this prevents the capacitive touch screen from detecting an electrically conductive object, namely your finger, placed on the touch screen. However, when the glove -does- conduct electricity, there is really no reason why the touch screen would not work. I do not doubt that, looking at the many accessories there are now for the IPod, if there really is a need for gloves with which you can still use the IPhone some entrepreneur will create them. Mahjongg 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Entry title

There are two products with the name iPhone - one is released by Linksys, and the other by Apple. The entry for the former is under "Linksys iPhone" while the Apple one is simply under "iPhone". Perhaps for the sake of consistency, this entry should be called "Apple iPhone", with "iPhone" being a disambiguation page. Djedi 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the history of this talk page. This subject has been discussed to death in the early stages, and the current situation is the result. Mahjongg 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Trust me Djedi, this isn't an argument you want to get involved in because you WILL lose. Different rules apply for Apple articles, you'll soon learn. This page may read like the longest advertisment in Wiki history but only pages like Sony's Vaio get tagged with "this article reads like an advert". A while back a user was insisting that this page must NOT refer to the LG Prada under any circumstances whatsoever, then a day later insisted that the LG Prada article MUST refer and link to the Apple phone. Welcome to iWikipedia (formerly O'Wikipedia - where even Eddie Murphy is Irish!). 86.17.211.191 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking the iPhone

Can someone put the story on the kid unlocking the iPhone under the controversy section. I would, but I am not a techie. Story is here. Miranda 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

George Hotz

Added some about the kid who broke the link between apple and AT&T. He probably deserves his own page....someone else can do that though.. :) Snotrockets13 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Would like to add information around the Activation process of first generation iphone

{{editsemiprotected}} There is only a minor mention of the original iPhone activation process. The original 2.5G has a revolutionary activation process that allowed users to buy the phone cold and then activate it from the comfort of their homes via itunes. This preventing having to wait in the store to activate and also made acquiring the device and "gifting" is significantly simpler for the purchaser and receiver. Apple also had AT&T create new "small/medium/larger" voice and data plans nationally for the device to simplify activation via itunes. I would like to add this information to the article. Pat.doran —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

 Not done You'll have to provide a source to back it up first.  fetchcomms☛ 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)