Talk:IPod/Archive 5

message: I'm thinking of nominating this article for featured artcle. Is their anything else that needs to be done before I do this?
==Page is locked, but here's an update to the iTunes Store section
Since the page is semi-locked, here's an update to the section "iTunes Store" to address the iTunes 7.2 / DRM-free changes.
Purchased audio files use the AAC format, and much of the music has added encryption. The encryption is based on the FairPlay DRM system. Up to five authorized computers and an unlimited number of iPods can play the files. Burning the files onto an audio CD, then importing back into iTunes or a different application will create music files without the DRM, although this results in reduced quality. The DRM can also be removed using third-party software. On May 30, 2007 Apple began selling songs on the EMI label without any added encryption and higher quality for $1.29.Cheng, Jacqui. . Retrieved on 2007-06-02.
Stattenf 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Yeah it's Flathead by the Fratellis--Snailey! 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new commercial song?

message: For article size reasons, I recommend not using the  template for the references. I think all references should just use the normal method with regular wiki syntax, which gives less text. --IE 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to fix it, nobody's stopping you.--HereToHelp 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we supposed to use  templates? I was under the general impression that people should use the cite templates in general, especially since the inclusion of info element by element allows the templates to be updated quickly if need be. I've been converting references to the cite format since it's on the to-do list. Nihiltres 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with using the  templates, but the problem is that this article is still a little too long, in my opinion. I often see the article size warning when editing. Using the regular wiki syntax for refs is a kind of cheap way of reducing the article size. If there's no objections, I would like to remove that task on the to-do list.--IE 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a horrible idea. I'd rather have an article that's too long than not using . Is there a policy somewhere, one way or the other? --Steven Fisher 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no strict policy on which style of referencing should be used. I think this article should use the Harvard format (see Harvard referencing policy) which can be done with normal wiki syntax.--IE 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no strict policy saying they must be used, but  exists to make the references section look better organized, instead of it being a bunch of links. Using  doesn't make the article that much longer. --Coredesat 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to retract my above statement. I think we need to continue using  to keep the many, many references organized.--HereToHelp 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to (officially, this doesn't count) suggest splitting the article sometime, into iPod (player) and iPod (brand) or some such setup (one would stay here). That would reduce the article size tremendously, without killing any cite format templates, which are very useful. Nihiltres 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual iPod model articles already provide a split for this article. There's nothing more that can be split from this article. Also, this article splitting idea has been discussed before: see Talk:IPod models and software and look in the archives of this talk page too. Also, the Harvard format of referencing is just as useful as the cite format templates.--IE 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to put the information in the body of the article, rather than use the info format? In my opinion, that looks cluttered, is distracting, and doesn't really work for the large amounts of internet sources used here. I also think that imbedded links ([www.apple.com]) are bad, since they are not descriptive and are larger than footnotes. However, if you only mean how the organization of the information in the footnotes themselves, and will leave the footnote system as a whole in place, I will retract my retraction.--HereToHelp 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, just wanted to make sure. Go ahead and change it. What else needs to be fixed up before an FAC nom?HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of things that need doing before this article can be a FAC.--IE 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like? (For instance, why do you insist that the infobox needs to be removed?)--HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is, when I make suggestions for article improvement, they often receive disagreement and lack of support. I often end up spending lots of time debating the merits of my suggestions.--IE 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All dates can be wiki-linked but only in the article body, and not in the references section - where there is no need to link dates. In the refs section, the date linking provides no benefit to the user, and just creates a cluttering of blue links. Also, regarding the  templates, this page says that "The use of citation templates is not required". This means that it's optional and can be avoided temporarily if the article is too big.--IE 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't follow what I was saying about wiki-linking full dates.  It is so users' date preferences are correctly followed.  As a result ANY date should be wiki-linked so this is correct.  Otherwise the dates will be in different formats throughout the article.  PaulC/T+ 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather just ignore the users' date preference requirement, simply because I don't like it when sentences looked over-linked. But if you insist on linking every date (within article body and within ... statements), then I'll just leave it.--IE 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So why not pick the one that works the best? This article has a lot of footnotes but virtually no book sources (those that apply to the article as a whole; I'm sure there are some in the footnotes for individual points). Most of the sources are links, and the footnotes work very well with that. However, the format of the cite template isn't going to change any time soon. There are also multiple ways to list references; all are acceptable so long as the article is internally consistent. Which it will be. (*nudge nudge*)--HereToHelp 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> reference template not recommended

message: 75.208.152.191 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developer Program 

message: The article is missing any information regarding recording with iPod. It seems that the hardware of the current iPods is capable of recording up to 24 bits, 96 kHz. Is there any iPod expert willing to include the information? --pabouk 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: This article has been put on hold due to the following WP:MOS violations.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 G .
*Per WP:MSH, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. 
Please feel free to contact me when these problems are addressed. Tarret 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently they were, seeing the next post...but I can't find any headings that repeat the title, and 2G stands for "second generation" and is supposed to be written that way.--HereToHelp 13:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA On Hold

message: Here are some semi-automated suggestions to bring the article to FA-class.
:The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 G . Special case; this is not applicable.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
**The best way to remedy this would be to combine all the sections that are only a paragraph or so. Any ideas?--HereToHelp 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: "...a Hong Kong-based IP portfolio company called Pat-rights filed a suit claiming that Apple's FairPlay technology breached a patent[38] issued to inventor Ho Keung Tse. The latter case also includes the online music stores of Sony, RealNetworks, Napster, and Musicmatch as defendants" -
This case doesnt actually refer to the ipod. It was agaisnt the itunes music store regarding the FairPlay files it sells. Is this relevant to ipod? I think this section should only really contain the patent disputes about the ipod product and not general cases agaisnt apple and the itunes music store which can obviously go on the itunes store page. --Neon white 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go move it, then.--HereToHelp 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent Dispute Section 

message: I plan to replace the image at the top of this article with a different one that has all 3 models (video, nano, shuffle) on one image. I'm unable to notify the original image author, since the image is on wikimedia commons. --IE 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a moment...did you take that image yourself or edit it together from other images? Because I went ahead and uploaded it to the Commons (repeated "Image:" in the title, whoops), and the Wikipedia image will be subsequently be deleted in a week. Frankly, that's a great image (the fading of the iPods at the bottom like Apple does it is a very nice touch). It might be nice to get the iPod video out of the dock, and the perspective on the nano is kinda awkward, but considering Apple didn't make it, it looks great.--HereToHelp 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I took the photos of each model individually, then combined into 1 image. So it is a 100% copyright-free image. Regarding use of the dock: The video iPods can't stand up without the dock.--IE 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I found the iPod Shuffle photo particularly good; I cropped it and uploaded it . --HereToHelp 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image at the top

message: Why would we want to lose the infobox about the ipod? see edit here.  Does this warrant a revert? --Oscarthecat 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because I don't think it suits this article, and it's too vague in certain areas. It also has several errors: for example the first line said "Manufacturer: Apple". I thought Foxconn was the manufacturer? Does Apple do any manufacturing? It also says "System storage: 1GB falsh memory, but the image shows a hard-drive based ipod. I think the opening paragraph and the various sections give a better summary/explanation for the stuff that was in the infobox. --IE 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see this comment here, added by User:Kungming2. --IE 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove the infobox 

message: This article needs a section on industry impact. I've found a few references of various things. I'll put down a few notes here, just to get a few opinions/comments and perhaps some expansion, before adding to the main article. The article needs some shortening before this stuff goes in though.--IE 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Industry impact section

message: There's a mention in one of the other talk sections about splitting this article for the player vs. the brand. Even disregarding the size of the article, I think this would be a good idea. There's currently an article for iPod shuffle, iPod nano and iPod mini. Dealing with the main iPod's details in an article that links to different articles for the Shuffle, Nano and Mini details is simply confusing. --Steven Fisher 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Does anyone think that we need to cover the docks that Apple makes? They were included with the main iPod line until the fifth generation. Perhaps a paragraph under "Accessories", or at least a sentence under "Connectivity". Any thoughts?--HereToHelp 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the more information the better. I am told that the docking system used applies only to Apple and that the wide range of third party docking attachments cannot be used with other makes of player (except with minijack leads in some cases). However, my Sandisk Salsa player has a docking connector that looks like the iPod one, and it would clearly make sense if this were to the same standard. Does anyone know whether this is so? I doubt that Apple have a patent on the port, as it would seem an obvious idea and therefore not patentable. Perhaps they claim copyright on the connection configuration, but the validity of such a thing would also seem dubious. The connector itself is available, and not an Apple product. Does anyone know the facts about this? The shops are full of iPod docking speakers etc, but few others, such that there is currently pressure to buy iPod rather than choose from other available (and in my opinion better) players. I find it hard to believe that other manufacturers have not adopted the Apple docking standard, as we clearly need such a standard. --Lindosland 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the dock connector is a proprietary apple standard.  They developed it themselves and in order for other companies to use it they have to ask Apple for the schematic and sign a usage agreement.  It is in Apple's best interest for this to remain proprietary so if people want to use iPod accessories, they need to buy an iPod.  I also believe apple may receive some kind of fee for the schematic as well.  This also limits the popularity of other mp3 players as 90% (made up number) of the accessories out there are exclusively for the iPod.  PaulC/T+ 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's two articles about the docks currently: IPod Universal Dock and dock connector. There's been a merge proposal from IPod Universal Dock since August, but no discussion, perhaps because it was never linked here! -- phoebe 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The iPod Universal Dock article has now been merged into this article by me, with extra info added by HereToHelp. Tom H 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading through the section, I've noticed some flaws in the writing ,both grammatically and style-wise. If someone wants to revise it, especially someone other than me or Tom H who haven't worked on it so much, please do so.--HereToHelp 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Docks 

message: The title of the article is "iPod" with a lower-case "I". It is my understanding that, by Wikipedia standard, all article titles are capitalized. If the first word is purposely to be left lower-case (as with the iPod) it should be noted that the capitalization is due to Wikipedia standards. wingman358 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not policy that all article titles are capitalized; it was a technical restriction (a.k.a. missing feature) in the software Wikipedia uses that disallowed articles beginning with lowercase letters.  It's my understanding that this has been fixed to some extent (i.e., articles can now begin with lowercase letters, but the first letter is capitalized in the article's URL).  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Trademarks_which_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter for more.  —bbatsell ¿? 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For other articles where this is an issue, there's a note to this effect ("due to technical restrictions, the name of this article appears as.. the proper name is..) at the top of the article. -- phoebe 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: I've noticed the pages for both the iPod photo and the fifth generation iPod, and I think that all generations of the iPod should have their own articles, which could be made accessible through the timeline. I think that if we include more in-depth info on each generation on this page, it will clutter up the article. --ApolloBoy 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What content do you intend to put? There's really not much that isn't said in the table, above the timeline.--HereToHelp 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly technical information, such as dimensions and processor type, and detailed history on the model.--ApolloBoy 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that if we can put together pages of comparable size fo the photo+5th articles, then they each warrant a page of their own. --Oscarthecat 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But I don't want lots of stubs floating around. Besides, is that level of detail notable and source-able?--HereToHelp 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page already seems to be straying outside Wikipedia rules to me. It exists, as I understand it, because the name has become iconic. This gives unfair advertising to Apple, does it not, as attempts to put up pages for every model of every type of consumer electronic device would, I think, be opposed. Personally I'd not object to such extension of the Wikipedia remit, but is it to be universal, as fairness requires? --Lindosland 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can understand some concern, but there's some precedent here isn't there?  Other manufacturers have articles for each popular product they have, such as Nintendo, who have pages for many of their products, see :Category:Nintendo_hardware.  I'm inclined to say let's see how much suitable content gets added onto each new article. iPod is a big (and iconic) piece of pop culture, let's document it's early development like this. It's what Wikipedia is all about!  --Oscarthecat 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for each generation? 

message: This page was previewed by http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/ . 222.130.194.253 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoutouts are good. I think. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macworld 2007

message: I have a question, and I dont see the information on the article, what is the purpose of the iPod? why was it made?Gumbos 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the iPod 

message: Bold textmy quesion for this artice is: where's the video???
i really think someone should put some stuff about the video on the article. i mean, their awesome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.29.44.244 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where's the video??? 

message: The Apple promotional material for the iPhone includes someone googling for ipod and selecting the wikipedia page on ipod (which is then viewed in the phone).
http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/
--Nantonos 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple use of wikipedia ipod page 

message: Shouldn't the iTunes lock-down be added in?
Last I checked, it's impossible to use any iPod without going through iTunes, formatting it to Apple's format, and then using the program to load them onto the device. On top of that, I don't think iTunes can be (regardless of the law) WINE'd, or used with CrossOver Office, Caldega, or anything else like that, you'd need a windows or mac OS installed to use your iPod.
I remembered having read about someone trying to sue Apple for that (case is still ongoing) and I thought it would be a good idea to put it in there.
Best regards,
72.138.179.83 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, there's some iTunes alternatives, see Comparison of iPod Managers. --Oscarthecat 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the DRM 

message: Anyone have any comments on the merge and the content taken from the dock page? Tom H 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the old image does illustrate the ports, and a crop of the picture at the top of the article could show the front of it, the image that I put there is better aesthetically. The transfer of the text is sufficient.--HereToHelp 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally. Tom H 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Dock merge 

message: I agree that picture is better... I just didn't want to upset anyone by not transferring enough from the dock page ;) Tom H 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the old image does illustrate the ports, and a crop of the picture at the top of the article could show the front of it, the image that I put there is better aesthetically. The transfer of the text is sufficient.--HereToHelp 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally. Tom H 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The sentence "Despite its own criticisms, Apple later complained that its competitor, Sony, had misled consumers in its advertising for Sony's music player. Apple complained that Sony had not considered real-world usage.[17]" in the Battery Issues section of Criticisms refers to a dispute about representation of disk space and file sizes (se link in note), but its inclusion and phrasing really seem to indicate something related to batteries.  It barely fits within the iPod article (it's more a criticism of Apple's perceived marketing duality) and certainly not in Battery Issues, since it has nothing to do with batteries.  I fear it to be misleading in its current incarnation.  207.96.176.72 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I am shocked that this issue hasn't been shown here.  Personally I know several people who have had to get their iPods replaced (or simply accept their loss with no warranty).  Also, all over the internet there is evidence for it. How is the form?  Feel free to add/remove or change if you wish. Dashboardy 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard drives

message: Hey, am I crazy or did someone just go and reformat nearly every citation in this article so that they don't use the Cite template?  I seem to remember this idea being proposed somewhere and everyone who commented on the issue disagreeing with it. AlistairMcMillan 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I just see a tumbleweed roll past? AlistairMcMillan 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite template 

message: I love open source -- I use Firefox, Thunderbird, Vim, Audacity, FileZilla, and dozens more, and contribute to many of the projects -- but I don't see why an encyclopedia article on the iPod includes a section on "Open Source Alternatives".  I think it should be removed, or at least changed to a page/section on the digital music player marketplace.
# This is an encyclopedia; purchasing advice and product comparisons don't belong here.  For one thing, it's original research.  For another, it simply does not belong in an encyclopedia.
# This page is about the iPod, not the digital music player marketplace.  If we want to explore the marketplace in general (i.e., the various products), perhaps there should be another page.  Though it does not seem to me that a list of current products in a category belongs in an encyclopedia -- the list will change next week anyway.
# Why limit it to Open Source alternatives, instead of listing commercial ones too (or anything closed source)?
# It looks very much like open source advocacy, which I suspect it is.  Advocacy, of course, does not belong in Wikipedia.
:Guanxi 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly see your point. I think really you could just say in the software part that there are alternatives, and leave it as that. I do agree that it really has nothing to do with the ipod. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove it (the article needs to be trimmed anyway), but we should mention "third parties have produced a number of programs, both open-source and proprietary, have evolved to trasnfer files to an iPod. Versions of Linux can even run on certain iPods directly as opposed to the default OS. Apple does not condone any of these programs.", or something like that. some of it may already be present in the article.--HereToHelp 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Open Source Alternatives" section included? 

message: The photo on the top of the page says "iPod 5G", but that model did not have a color screen or look the one as in the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeDee912 (talk • contribs) 23:24, February 11, 2007
: 5G means fifth generation.  I've changed all instances of this type of contraction.  This was done ages ago because people were being confused by it, but over time it seems to have crept back into the article. AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Is this article ready to submit as a featured article candidate (FAC) ? Does anything else need to be added or tidied up? --IE 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this ready as a Featured article candidate?

message: Ipods can hold up to 80 gigs, with the video Ipod. Others like the Nano can hold up to 8 gigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.199.51 (talk • contribs) 01:58, February 20, 2007
: Is the answer: "What are the current storage capacities of Apple's iPod devices" AlistairMcMillan 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's the question'. Don't you understand how the show works?--SeizureDog 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'll take random iPod trivia for $200 Alex

message: I know this has been discussed before, but could someone come up with a good cite.  I'm having trouble with the whole "Apple never call it The iPod" idea.
*Apple® today introduced the iPod® U2 Special Edition
*ground breaking features that have made the iPod the best music player in the world
*Album art pops and slideshows stun on the iPod nano’s dazzling display.
*There are now more than 3,000 accessories available for the iPod
*until you are ready to eject the iPod in iTunes
Maybe I should have paid more attention in school.  Any help?  AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this has really been discussed.  The only discussion I can find in the archives is something in February, where someone made a comment and someone else pointed out the article already follows the no definite article usage.  I have no idea why this is even an issue.  In other such discussions I've been involved with, the consensus is to use English in the normal way that people use it.  Apple can try and dictate to us not to use the definite article (if they really do), but really, what authority do they have on Wikipedia editing?  If it's true that Apple has some kind of policy on this, they would seem to have trouble following it themselves.  --C S (Talk) 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The''' iPod

message: Perhaps somewhere in this article a bit could be added to inform the reader that the iPod was not the firt digital audio device, contrary to what many people believe.  It was, of course, the device which first set the digital audio player market in gear.  I would have submitted the idea for change to the article myself, but I do not have an account yet (I'll need to get one soon).
69.66.92.207 02:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the History section, the article notes that, "...the company found digital music players 'big and clunky or small and useless' with user interfaces that were 'unbelievably awful', so decided to develop its own."  I think that pretty clearly states that other DAPs existed at the time.  Do you have a suggestion for a reword?  Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I cannot find any good way to rework it. Even just a few words at the very beginning of it would more than suffice. Perhaps ignore this discussion topic - looking back on the article again, it seems just fine as-is.69.66.92.207 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod was not the first MP3 device 

message: i found this on the internet, could it be included? Fwed66 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what the...

message: The artical "List_of_iPod_model_numbers" was deleted several months ago. Instead I purpose it be merged into the chart on this page. I found it exceedingly useful, and bookmarked it only to find that it's now gone. Also, I found links elsewhere online that point specifically to that page. Can someone do this for me? I lack the time and ablity to do so myself. Besides, I wanted to open this up for disussion. DougCube 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod model numbers 

message: "If you buy digital music outside of iTunes or an MP3 based service then you're not going to be able to put the music on your iPod. I think that confuses consumers more than anything else." BBC news article on DRM.. Pgr94 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an Ipod so I can't verify this fact.  But I find it very odd that major media concerns are allegedly getting this basic fact wrong.  BBC news (usually quite reliable) has published an article about DRM, so one would expect them to use suitably competent journalists.  So this misconception about the Ipod is now reaching a scale where it should be covered explicitly in the article.  For example a (sub)section entitled "common misconceptions" or something like that.  It should address what the media are getting wrong and why.  Pgr94 10:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that technology journalism tends to be drivel-driven, including some of the pieces I've seen online on the BBC site; however, this piece seemed decently written.  I wonder if Ferdia O'Brien is referring to legitimate mp3 downloads rather than DRM-protected music downloads.  As described in the above article (which jibes with other sources I've read) most of the stores or subscription services are Microsoft PlaysForSure certified and so use some kind of Windows Media DRM that is incompatible with the iPod.  Of course, PlaysForSure is only for Windows PC, which I think makes the relevance of this to the iPod article rather suspect. --C S (Talk) 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vendor lock-in revisited. 

message: Please add  in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA in zh.wikipedia 

message: Could someone put more details about the iPod - similar to on the Zen Vision:M page?
Kind of like what's on the Specs page for Apple iPod website.
That would be extremely useful and helpful!
172.200.70.122 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a wide range of iPods.  If we included a specs section, the already too long article, would end up ridiculously long.  AlistairMcMillan 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More details for iPod 

message: Now, I'm no apple crusader, but... I realized that nearly all the issues in the section were addressed and resolved by Apple. So, I tried to put a sentence at the beginning of tthe section which read, "It should be noted that many of these issues have been addressed and resolved." Makes sense, right? But it keeps getting deleted.
So, can we either delete some criticisms or make it clear that some of them are no longer relevent? Like the one about the labor dispute and the bass response. Seriously, it looks stupid.--Asderoff 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple responding to criticism doesn't mean that the criticism never happened.  And where Apple have responded to criticism or released updated iPods that aren't  subject to the same criticism, it is noted within the text.  Having a blanket statement at the top of the section, looks bad, makes it look like we are Apple apologists.  The only problem with that section is that some of it is not referenced.  AlistairMcMillan 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes but, since the section is both too long, unreferenced, and (in my opinion) unneeded, can we just get rid of one or two sections? Expecially the labor dispute and bass response, those are so stupid.--Asderoff 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is pretty much what we have already.  AlistairMcMillan 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Under connectivity, the article states
"New iPods have the ability to connect a Mini-TosLink to them. This includes first gen iPod Nano, second gen iPod Nano, and fifth gen iPod."
Where is the source for this? I have not heard it before, and after asking on the newsgroup uk.comp.sys.mac, it appears no-one else has either. It was suggested that this may be a misunderstanding from this cable - http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/dkstore?productLearnMore=TA968 - being mislabelled as iPod compatible on pages such as http://www.frontierpc.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=20164017F
I will see if I have any Toslink cables at home to confirm/deny this, but I suspect it's incorrect.
Zoara 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a first-generation iPod Nano and it certainly doesn't have a TosLink connector.  There was no source, and since at least two of us think this is incorrect, I've removed the statements.  Jpp42 07:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just as an update, I have checked my 5G iPod with a mini-TosLink and it definitely doesn't produce an optical output. So yeah, it needed removing.... Note that the mini-connectors are identical in shape/size to the standard headphone sockets, so the author wasn't talking about a dedicated socket. I think that Apple's Airport Express has a socket that doubles as standard 3.5mm jack and mini-TosLink. Zoara 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toslink connections - are you sure? 

message: I think the overall style of this article needs revising.  The grammar is poor (such as "although the iPod shuffle has buttons also") and the article is disjointed.  I feel this needs a ground-up rewrite.Greynolds999 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Bearian 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: It's time this article is split into separate model sections. I propose:
iPod covering BREIF summery of all the CURRENT Models, and a basic history.
iPod covering what apple used to call the white iPod, the flagship model, also merge iPod photo and U2 into this article include a history of this model
iPod mini self explanatory
iPod Nano "
iPod Shuffle "
There is the possibility of a separate history article, but I don't know.
TrevorLSciAct 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's time to split 

message: I placed advertising tags on two sections, to which I was alerted.  All prices should be removed.  Otherwise, they would constitute an Offer for a Contract.  Bearian 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree because I have seen plenty of prices in other, highly-visible articles like World of Warcraft and there's been no dispute or confusion of the sort there. 68.108.22.244 05:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also disagree. The store section (the only one where an advertising tag remains) is not written like an advertisement. What's more, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX does not appear to take a position on the use of factual prices in a section. I suggest that the remaining advertising tag should come down. MacPrince 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising tag

message: the timeline is now 6 months out of date. i know not how to update it.Nicoli nicolivich 15:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: The text says "BMW released the first iPod automobile interface,[16] allowing drivers of newer BMW vehicles to control their iPod using either the built-in steering wheel controls or the radio head-unit buttons."
This is not true.  I was using a Dension Ice Link (http://www.dension.com/) adapter in my car (coincidentally, a BMW) at the time of the original Apple/BMW announcement (i.e., before BMW shipped any cars with the new feature).  This device also allows the driver to control the iPod via the steering wheel controls.
At best, it may be fair to say that BMW was the first car manufacturer to include iPod support.
82.150.97.40 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod car interfaces 

message: the article does not contain any reference to wolfmother which is significant to the product. please let me know if it is okay to add it 122.162.148.147 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the band Wolfmother significant to the iPod? I think one of their songs was used in one of the "dancing silhouettes" commercials, but that's it. -- Kesh 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It has as much if not more to do with Guitar Hero II...hahaha
-- 72.199.47.190 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wolfmother