Talk:IPhone/Archive 3

message: Pricing in this article is too inconclusive, shouldn't someone expand it to include prices from other places than america as well, like britain, europe, china and australia. The Danielmeister 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When non-US prices are announced I'm sure they will be added by someone.  The problem is, they haven't been announced, so we can't add them yet. AlistairMcMillan 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing 

message: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/
-- Delsource (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Verizon's restrictions?!  Don't tell me: the iPhone is too advanced for that company to handle, right?! LOL! Please do explain - and cite; the article tells a very different story.  It's perfectly reasonable to add this to the article in my view.  Basically, according to the quoted VC official the first attempt by Apple to get this product to market with a cell-net partner failed because of seemingly unreasonable demands from the manufacturer (a first?).  How is that "not particularly notable" given the article's current verbosity - particularly in regard to the Cingular tie-in?  There's an awful lot in this article that isn't particularly notable but stays in. 86.17.211.191 15:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verizon passed up Apple iPhone deal 

message: This article seems to get daily, multiple vandals, or spam or extreme POV pushing..should we be requesting semi-protection against unregistered as well as newbie (<4 days old) users? Though I do realize we have some good contributions to this article by unregistered users. I do not have time to keep reverting vandals, though I guess if the rest of you continue to keep up maybe we're fine as is. --Jason C.K. 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recently applied to it.  I too find it annoying to go through the history and see blatant vandalism.  Madd the sane 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily multiple vandals...semi-protection? 

message: While there's no way of knowing if this will be in THIS iPhone (at launch, or via s.w. rev), should we have a section in here on iPhone-related patents/Apple telephony patents?  Reading here, of particular interest is (quoted stuff in brackets are insertions by me from elsewhere in the article): "In other examples, the user initiation may be as a result of interacting with an application on the computing device 102 to be upgraded [or "attempting to download a twenty-sixth song" where "the song-holding capacity is twenty-five songs"]. For example, the computing device 102 may be a mobile telephone that is configured to also operate as a portable media player. The user may interact with the portable media player application, which then wirelessly (e.g., via a cellular or other wireless connection) interacts with the service ["the service may provide media to the [mobile] computing device"]."  Seems pretty clear the groundwork has been laid for an iPhone to wirelessly pull iTunes content off your computer, even going so far as to hit the Music Store via your iPhone ("securely configure a [mobile] computing device").  It even mentions cellular connection, and I don't think anything in there specifies it's YOUR personal computer that is part of the overall "service"...so maybe cellular downloads from the Music Store? --Jason C.K. 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Detailing patents is a bit of a mine-field isn't it. Most carriers offer today wireless music and video download from their "online store".  In fact Cingular has it for all their camera phones except for the iPhone, which will use iTunes. It's very difficult to know who if anyone has prior-art. It may make sense to stay about from this. HuskyMoon 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Similarly to my reply above, just because they have applied for a patent doesn't automatically mean they are going to release a product based on that patent.  And if you take the example of the iPod scroll wheel patent, I believe they actually wrote the patent as if the scroll wheel was a new feature they were planning to add to mice.  So you can't take them too literally.  AlistairMcMillan 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple has patented wireless patches/music downloads to mobile phones 

message: This page needs to be cleaned of vandalism. Thank you.(72.95.185.44 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Why is this article pointing to the Apple product which is not even released? As far as iPhone is concerned, Cisco still has the right, and actual product in the market. Its pathetic to see wikipedia hijacked by Apple fanbois. - 69.142.159.60 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed extensively before. Please refer to the archived talk pages for more information. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but this article is just "iPhone" rather than "Apple iPhone".  We have "Linksys iPhone". Why does the latter have to carry the company name as well as product, where this article does not? -- 86.17.211.191 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last point is one that many overly zealous people seem to have some trouble with and - it appears to me - tend to ignore or gloss over.  There can be of course no objection that this article carries the name "iPhone", given the agreement between the two parties, and neither can there be much argument about the automatic direct to this product from the term "iPhone" given the hype that surrounds it.  But there is no justification that I have heard or read (including here and in the archives) for not calling this article "Apple iPhone". -- Delsource (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this about Apple phone? 

message: I heard somewhere that if you purchase the apple iPhone you get 2 years of free service (possibly 1.5 years). Is this true?
Thoraxcorp 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is speculation so far, but it was my understanding that the agreement with Apple included a provision requiring that the price of the phone not be discounted by Cingular as an incentive to lock people into a contract.  It makes sense, then, for Cingular to move that incentive/discount over to the price of service.  N months of free service, or extremely cheap introductory rates don't seem too far-fetched.  But until we have a source one way or the other, none of this is fit for inclusion in the article. —Fastolfe00 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Service for 2 years? 

message: For a relatively short and (fairly) trivial article there are too many references. The short 'History' paragraph alone has 15(!) references most of which are redundant (one should contain enough information and the rest is just repeating). Someone should filter the worthwhile links out and remove some. Agentbla 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a better idea, now that the trademark dispute is over the time has come to move contents of whole "iPhone trademark" paragraph to it's own article, and only keep a few sentences in which we link to the new article. That alone would remove most of the unnecessary references.Mahjongg 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this iPhone trademark thing is really notable enough for a whole article.  I say we just shorten the section here and leave it. I've shortened the section, removing duplicate and borderline argumentative content. AlistairMcMillan 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of references 

message: I haven't found any references to a VoIP app being included with the iPhone, nor have I seen this phone being discussed as a hybrid EDGE/Wi-Fi phone.  I think the capabilities are there, I'm just not sure if anyone (Apple/Cingluar) is ready for that step yet.  I know that Cingular has been testing cellular/wi-fi for years with some very closed tests (I worked in a BLS building for a time as a contractor and was offered a test phone), but don't know that it's ready for prime-time.  I'm sure there are still a ton of problems with wi-fi/cellular handoffs and vice versa.  Personally, I would take a hybrid phone with the understanding that when moving from Wi-fi to cellular, I would experience a significant number of dropped calls.  It could even be a setting on the phone whether to accept incoming calls over wi-fi or cellular technology and/or a prompt when making an outgoing call (wi-fi or cellular).  This seems to me to be a killer app in a phone and someone will get it all figured out eventually.  Personally, I wouldn't put it past Steve to announce that with some of his usually flair in the next few months or even with the upgrade to Leopard on the iPhone (not really related, but Apple has consistently done things like this in the past).
As for me, I can't wait...my VZW contract ends soon and I'm holding out for the iPhone....
24.127.115.100 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any speculation as to there is a built-in VoIP capability in the iPhone? 

message: A reference to a social network dedicated to the iPhone was deleted from the "external links" section.  These types of websites provide up-to-date information, such as new videos, which are not found on wikipedia.  Moreover, they comment on rumours, which eventually turn out to be true, but obviously should not be commented in here.  Isn't it reasonable to include sites such as www.2-iphone.com in the article?  If it's not, why should other product articles contain more extensive lists of external links?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.37.23.178 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:External links. AlistairMcMillan 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no external references to websites dedicated to iPhone? 

message: i just wanted to say that the release date for the iPhone is June 15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveiPhone (talk • contribs) 20:50, February 28, 2007
: How did you come across this information? AlistairMcMillan 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's true, 2nd, he dosent provide any links or quotes! The New apple comercials say that it will be released June, 24 2007. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: I think to make this article NPOV "iPhone" shouldn't automatically go to the Apple iPhone page. There should be a disambiguation page with both devices listed.
--Waynekruse -- March 03 12:17 GMT +11
: Already been discussed more than once.  See the archives linked near the top of the page.  AlistairMcMillan 06:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to read through all that (as some parts just seem to endlessly repeat), let me summarize all of the previous discussion: people on one side (mostly people who have been on Wikipedia for a while) argued that primary topic disambiguation applies, trademark disputes are irrelevant to naming of articles, and that being NPOV does not entail overturning of the usual Wikipedia procedure.  People on the other side (mostly new editors, who don't seem to have a great familiarity with Wikipedia procedures on disambiguation) argued that Wikipedia was taking sides in the trademark dispute, that NPOV is violated by primary topic disambiguation, and that everyone disagreeing is a Mac fanboy.  Feel free to correct my summary.  --C S (Talk) 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple/Cisco iPhone 

message: While kind of amusing I don't really think this is a good idea.  We have the table of content right below the intro which is there for navigating the page, why have these links in the paragraph above that serve the same purpose?
And then there is that policy about making links as unambiguous as possible.  If people click on a link that says "email client" they expect to be taken to a page about "email client". AlistairMcMillan 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, what is the most informative info about the iPhone email client than the email section of the iPhone page.  That section can then link to broader discussions on other pages.  -Gomm 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool.  So if they want to know about the email features, they look in the table of contents and click on the word "Email".  If TOCs work for every other article on Wikipedia, why do we need this extra navigation?  AlistairMcMillan 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, TOCs are cool, and certaintly, if readers want to see a list of the contents in a page, then they should look at the table of contents.  My question is not about what should be in the TOC or whether users should use the TOC if they want to learn about the contents of a page.  My question is whether a link should link to the best discussion of the subject listed in that link.  If the best discussion of the subject of a link just happens to be on the same page, then should we be able to direct readers to it? or should we only be able to link to superior content if they couldn't also get there by going to the TOC, looking for it there, and following that link? -Gomm 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links should respect the principle of least surprise.  So a link to camera phone should go to camera phone.  It is understood by the reader that further information on the iPhone's camera features will be contained in the later part of the article.  It is also understood that the reader wishing to learn more about camera phones can click on the camera phone link.  --C S (Talk) 19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a further clarifying example, the article on Bill Clinton mentions he is President of the United States.  The link to President of the United States should not be an anchor link to another part of the Bill Clinton article, surely.  If you consider what you are doing, it is contrary to the usual wiki practice.  --C S (Talk) 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Alistair.  The current setup is confusing and violates the usual linking practice.  Before doing something so out of the norm, you should discuss it first before implementing these changes.  For now, I am reverting it back.   --C S (Talk) 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in intro 

message: In revision #117159717 user AlistairMcMillan has deleted the entire Trademark dispute section. There has been no discussion whether it should be taken out of the article and I hereby call for the reintroduction of this section. At least there should be some way of finding a consensus to avoid such suspicious overnight removals of entire sections. It even looks like a mistake. Agentbla 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how that happened.  I had no intention to delete that section.  I'll fix it.  AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've restored the deleted section.  I'm really not sure what is going on there.  I remember making that edit.  I was only planning to remove the extra line break that was obvious in this edit by SeaFlat.  That's kinda disturbing.  AlistairMcMillan 00:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "iPhone trademark"/"Trademark dispute" section deleted 

message: I've removed this from the article:
:According to a leak iPhone's OS is named 'Aloha OS X'.
Firstly because we don't know whether it is a real leaked document or not.  Secondly because we don't know if "Aloha" refers to the phone or the operating system.  Basically this doesn't tell us anything definite.
Some interesting things about this though.
The PDF metadata has Bertrand Serlet as the author and the creation date as September 1, 2006, and suggests he was running a beta version of 10.4.8 when he allegedly created this.
According to a posting on Macrumors back in March 2006, Apple filed for a trademark on "Aloha" in Hong Kong, back in December 2004.  AlistairMcMillan 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. "Aloha" means, amongst other things, "hello", which is a word Apple is pretty fond of using in conjunction with major product introductions. But yes, we need something more concrete than a purported leaked document.  -/- Warren 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aloha 

message: Before I had heard it was only a 6-month exclusivity contract  (I've even seen 2 weeks...).  Also, the reference cited says nothing about being exclusive until 2009.  Any other references?  
70.61.100.232 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? 65.82.104.120 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bueller? AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously though, I've cited a CNN article as a source for the 2009 thing, and please don't believe everything you see posted at Digg/Slashdot/whatever.  "This guy says he knows this guy, who spoke to this guy, who heard from his sister, who is married to this other guy, who buys his dope from this dude, whose brother works for this company, and he said..."  AlistairMcMillan 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keynote says "Apple and Cingular have a multi-year exclusive partnership. The iPhone is only available with Cingular Wireless Services." ~Stan Sigman, Cingular CEO —Shanesan  (contribs) (Talk) 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  5 years people... I can't believe no one said anything yet, update please. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-05-21-at&t-iphone_N.htm 199.209.253.27 8:20 7 June 2007
m2cents
I think there should be a serperate article, well maybe that is too much, but imo there is something worth mentioning between the release of the iPhone by Apple and the ENTIRE RESTRUCTURE OF AT&T For past several years and what they did to regain the wireless market by taking over Cingular in an "excluse" plan. Hoovie 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ... what? -- Kesh 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: the iPhone has nothing to do with the AT&T/Cingular Merger.Hemidemisemiquaver 04:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cingular exclusive until 2009? 

message: Important or not, it is evident that the Apple iPhone page will receive much more traffic than the Linksys iPhone page. So why not redirect the "iPhone" page to the Apple iPhone page instead of the Linksys page? Arius Maximus 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to this. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Arius was talking about Iphone.  It is fixed now.  AlistairMcMillan 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to Redirect Page

message: I cant wait! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.47.42 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iphone 

message: Is the phone java enabled?? can we play the games as on ipod? What about the games sold through Itunes? Is there any feature of Ipod which iPhone will not have? 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.62.67 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  games?? 

message: Hello, it might be a good idea to give readers a sense of the excitement surrounding the iPhone by supplying some text from the liveblogging that occurred during the keynote in which the iPhone was introduced.  For example, Engadget's liveblogging of the event includes some good quotes:
"Huge, huge applause, standing ovation."
"'I can just take my fingers and I can move them together and further apart, and make the photo bigger or smaller.' HUGE applause -- touch gesturing apparently really hit a chord with these people."
"People are rapt, everyone is actually literally leaning forward and on the edge of their seat. We've never seen a presentation like this before."
To put this device in context, I think it might be important to show how people were looking forward to this for years--the keynote atmosphere would be a good way to convey the fever pitch.
140.209.101.205 04:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, bad idea.  We don't need to include these quotes or do something that would lessen the encyclopedic value of this article.  Mac fans are known for their extreme enthusiasm; delving into something which really only another Mac fan would be interested in reading about would only instill a Mac fanboy bias into the article.  --C S (Talk) 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conveying a sense of the keynote 

message: Can someone remove the UK in the sentence: Apple applied for the "iPhone" trademark in the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore and the European Union.
It is a bit redundant and falsely gives the impression that the UK is not a member of the EU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.85.58.133 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Seems like a reasonable point. Edward Grefenstette 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UK Trademark law is different to EU Trademark law therefore the inclusion in not redundant. I see someone has reverted it anyway. (Ajkgordon 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, while EU trademarks obviously apply in the UK, countries are allowed to retain additonal trademarks and have a seperate trademark organization. Mad onion 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK / EU 

message: This is a pretty weak source to say that Cingular has full reign of how the iPhone is supposed to be sold (2-year Contract only?). I don't believe that we have heard from any legit source that says Apple has bowed down to Cingular so easily. How does Cingular have full reign of service agreement in Apple Stores? I believe this is an assumption and not backed by fact. —Shanesan  (contribs) (Talk) 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone only on 2-year Contract? 

message: I can't believe you guys missed this. The first letter of the article name lacks capitalization in every instance. Please fix ASAP. Thanks. -Indolences 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't insult the many writers of this article with incredulity at a perceived oversight. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style states: "For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization ..."  An analysis of Apple's official press release for the iPhone, a Google search for the phrase iPhone, and recent headlines about the iPhone show universal consensus: the CamelCase utilized in the iPhone's name is the only way to format the product name iPhone. Therefore, the capitalization in the article name is unequivocally correct. 66.41.203.91 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you just used entirely too many big words for that guy to understand. 65.189.210.173 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization error? 

message: Granted, the article mentions pricing for 2-year, new activation contracts; but what about those that have existing Cingular plans and merely want the phone?  Does anyone have any information regarding retail sales?209.114.201.30 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-year pricing only? 

message: Seems like the project is so under wraps content providers can't get ahold a contact to get developer support for the Iphone.  (original research done by me :) ).  Mathiastck 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iphone Developer 

message: The link for the at&t does not work, it says the page is not there. Swearnese 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the "AT&T iPhone website" link, it worked for me - it was going to a site with a Cingular domain name, and was getting redirected to a www.wireless.att.com site.  I've updated it to go directly to the att.com site. Guy Harris 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links at the end of the page 

message: Why are we using all these terrible old pictures of the iphone, at strange angles and behind glaring glass. Can't we use some of the avalible iphone pictures on the web, I've seen them all over. These probably a reason, so sorry ahead of time.
:Because all of Apple's images are copyrighted. Until June 29, we have to content ourselves with the Flickr shots taken by private photographers after Macworld who were gracious enough to allow us to use them. Oh, and the convention with talk pages is to put new posts on the bottom--no harm done--so I moved it there for you.--HereToHelp 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not savvy on the finer points of copyrighting, so... would it be acceptable to take a photograph of a TV displaying an iPhone in an advertisement? I'm looking at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition but I don't see an answer there. — Epastore 00:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: It says in the article about the song accompanying the "Hello" ad:
The commercial's background music track is "Inside Your Head" by Eberg. Notably, some of the song's lyrics have been overdubbed, replacing "I wouldn't wanna be...Inside your head" with "I wanna be...Inside your head."
Not only is this redundant information, but it's also wrong.
I have here the quicktime video of the ad as it was shown on apple.com and the original song and after listening for a while, i hear no difference at all.
I suggest to have this corrected (proof or consensus on the web is also great) or if there is no answer at all, deleted.
I don't think a lot of people will need, or miss this information, but while it's there, I'd like it to be correct.
Cheers.
Kickee 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone "Hello" Ad 

message: Released on 6 June, 2006, but has not yet appeared on Apple's site.
:Yeah that ad is now at www.apple.com/iphone/ads/ad4 . However this ad does not feature the "requires new 2-year contract" line at the end, and I believe that it's been removed from the others (though only on the TV-airing ads, not the ads on the iPhone site).
82.28.228.147 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New iPhone ad 

message: Shouldn't there be something about third-party application development for iPhone?
-Tapd260 (but for some reason there's a glitch that won't let me edit so I'm using my IP) 69.118.198.115 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know that there will be third-party applications for the iPod yet. Give it until WWDC on Monday, we may have more solid announcements there. -- Kesh 01:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information has been added since the announcement that third-party apps would be used via Safari in a Web 2.0/AJAX format. Scottydude  talk 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scottydude, I undid your contribution regarding third party Web 2.0 apps in the internet section because I added this information 2 days ago to the OSX section.  Since this has to do with phone functionality that will remain when not connected to the internet, I think it belongs in the OS section, or possibly a new section should be created.  What does everybody else think? Hemidemisemiquaver 21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third-Party 

message: Does anyone know what the length of the charging cable will be?  Thickness would be helpful and interesting too.  Thanks.  Oh, and will the box be made out of a plastic/paper composite or will it be fully recyclable card? What weight per yard? -- 86.17.211.191 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...No.  That kind of information won't be available until, you know...the thing actually comes out. 65.189.210.173 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charging cable 

message: Have there been any concerns or discussions raising potential privacy issues surrounding the iPhone? Obviously, the iPhone is no more private than any other equivalent cell phone with regards to actual phone calls, but what about privacy concerns regarding informations being sent back to "Big Brother" on what music and movies are played on the iPhone? 204.147.113.36 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's against Apple's TOS. Unlikely. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy Issues