Talk:IPhone/Archive 7

message: Processor is an ARM1176JZF running at 620MHz, the best source I could find is: http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/01/iphone-processor-found-620mhz-arm/ Nickcich (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU 

message: I found an article on the web that says the iPhone currently has 27% of the smartphone market. The URL is "http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/21/iphone-grabs-27-of-us-smartphone-market/". Can someone add this for me, since this is a protected article? Thanks, 74.163.236.92 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly what that article says — it's talking specifically about a 3-month period of time (though it certainly doesn't make that clear in the title or introduction).  Also, I'm not entirely positive that RoughlyDrafted would be a reliable source.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to that, there's also another article from the same site which adds doubt to those statistics. I've also heard from other sources where all phones sold to AT&T by Apple is counted in the total sales, which many pundits would say is a totally wrong way to go about it. Virtually all other smartphone vendors consider a phone being sold when the customer actually places the phone in his hands. For all we know, there could be thousands of un-sold iPhones in AT&T's inventory - even though Apple's already counted them in their sales totals. Groink (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request to add... 

message: It will out in Canada in Q1, 2008 in Canada?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.2.238 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: I edited the SIM lock section just now. There is no proof that Apple deliberately messed up iPhones with its updates. Anytime a 3rd-party messes around with the code in any device, you cannot expect the manufacturer to update the device without failure. Testing of the updates are done in-house, and do not take account any non-authorized modifications to the firmware. And, updating firmware is not like installing patches on an operating system, i.e. firmware updates do not merge into the existing firmware. Rather, updates replace the firmware. That is why non-official mods like adding applications suddenly disappear when you do such an update. I'm an expert in the area of firmware - as I've developed firmware and ROM-BIOS software for several companies - including Phoenix Technologies, C&T, etc. BTW, in the Software/Applications section, there is even a cited sentence indicating that Apple does not deliberately damage the iPhone. So until someone can prove with forensic evidence and/or an email or other correspondence demonstrating that the firmware updates purposely mess around with the functionality of the iPhone, please leave this information out.
I also removed the mention of unlocking the iPhone. It was poorly written to the point where it couldn't be fixed. Also, the criticism should not be used to tell readers how to go about eliminating the feature. Instead, a new section outside of the criticism section should be developed. Groink (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIM lock section editing 

message: Is this the 15th time someone has tried to create a criticism section on this page?  Criticisms are best done in the body of the article as opposed to being given its own section, this has been hashed over again and again.  Much work was done to integrate criticisms into the appropriate place and yet every time that happens someone mistakenly creates the section again.  It looks like I'm going to have to fix this article yet again. -- Atamasama 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've applied the fixes. No more criticism section! Groink (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow Groink you are the best, I hadn't had a chance to get to it, but you fixed it better than I probably could have. -- Atamasama 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section AGAIN? 

message: I suspect this has been discussed before but why iPod without "the", while the iPhone with "the"? -- Taku (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be the version of English being used by the editor. From what I've read, British English and American English differ when it comes to using articles. As an American, I would refer to both the iPod and the iPhone using "the" preceding the proper noun. And, by reading articles by both Americans and British media (CNet, The Register, etc.) I would tend to believe that using "the" followed by iPod or iPhone is the norm in any version of English. Unless others object with supporting information, I would go ahead and make the edits the way you see fit, per Wikipedia guidelines. In the guidelines, only if: 1) the subject matter is regionally specific, and 2) the majority of editors are practicing a certain form of English (ex: using colour instead of color), I would go ahead and use a more universal form of English in your edits, because I don't see either #1 or #2 in this article. Groink (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially, its never preceded by "the", for example, look at the conditions from iPhone AppleCare – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the document carefully... In only one instance throughout the document did they leave out the article "the" before iPhone, which was the title of the document. In document titles, it is normal for the writer to leave out articles, which is referred to as "reduction" or "omission." And in support of what I mentioned earlier, they did in fact use "the", such as "the Apple-branded iPhone" (remove "Apple-branded" and you would have "the iPhone".) Otherwise, throughout the remainder of the document, the iPhone was addressed as a "covered iPhone." So this document serves no evidence. And, in using Google, searches for the phrase "the iPhone" for any apple.com site reveals 37,000 hits. Groink (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iPhone without the "the"? over 3 million. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jesus, do you EVER study what you're actually posting? No. All the first 20 pages of that so-called search was 1) a LOT of pages contain sentences that START with the word "iPhone", and 2) there are other ways to add the word "iPhone" into a sentence, such as "an iPhone", "le iPhone", "da iPhone", "bricked iPhone", "dead iPhone", "私は iPhone"... But you are very entertaining, as I thought I had a crappy day until your links came along... Groink (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod vs the iPhone 

message: How can a cellphone not be "multimedia?" If it makes noise and has a display it's multimedia.  This can probably be excluded.
-FoxMajik 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "multimedia" does have a criteria, much like "smartphone", among other things. In your analogy, an alarm clock is a multimedia device. See what I mean? Groink 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multimedia?  Duh? 

message: A photo is worth a thousand words. But if it takes a run-on sentence to describe a photo, then maybe - JUST maybe the photo isn't delivering the message effectively. Case in point - the photo demonstrating the functionality of the iPhone's built-in camera. Photos are supposed to fit the context of the section it supports. In this case, if a reader can't make ends out of the photo without reading a lengthy description of it, then IMHO the photo is a bad one. I recommend removing the photo and wait for a better one to appear. I've said this dozens of times - it isn't a travesty if an article or section lacks a photo. AND, a bad photo is better than having no photo no photo is better than a bad photo. Unfortunately, I don't have an iPhone. But if I had one and wanted to demonstrate the camera's functionality, I would take a photo of a famous monument or other object, and then place it side-by-side with an archived photo of the same thing from the Creative Commons collection. Usually this would be considered original research, which is taboo on Wikipedia. But for the sake of demonstrating the camera's functionality, something along the line of what I mentioned should be fine. Groink (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a poor picture is usually better than no picture, but I've said before that a misleading and/or confusing picture is worse than no picture. I think that picture demonstrating the iPhone is gimmicky and something simpler like you suggested would be an improvement, but the picture and caption that exist are terrible. No offense to the person who posted it, because it's a clever idea, it just doesn't work. -- Atamasama 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Taku, just FYI the picture you were trying to use at the beginning of the article (with the orange background) has an outdated version of the software on it (it is missing the iTunes store icon). The original image was more accurate. -- Atamasama 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was completely my mistake. It was pointed out by others and has been rectified. I could have been more careful, though. I was more worrying about hacks, and didn't realize the iTunes Music Store icon was mission. -- Taku (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the photo of a photo of a photo of..... 

message: What about information about the unlocking and the firmware updates of the iphone?
If you want me to write it , just post it in my talk.
--KelvinHOwiki flight simmer(talk) 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was tried before. In short, it is un-encyclopedic. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't take lightly "hacks" that take a given device beyond its "official" use. For example, one could write a section where an iPhone can be used as a detonator to ignite explosives. The best solution would be to write a new article, but I've seen that done and deleted on Wikipedia as well. Therefore, I don't think the non-existence of the unlocking information is by accident. Groink (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unlocking/firmware 

message: As this page is protected, I am not comfortable editing it (I am a newer user), however, I think the current trademark issues that Apple is struggling with in Canada is notable.  The iPhone is still not available in Canada due to the fact that Comwave Telecomm currently owns the iPhone trademark in Canada.  As of yet, they have not reached an agreement.  The dispute has been ongoing for more than a year with no resolution in site.  Here is a reference: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/10/11/tech-iphone-trademark.html (SJM (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The iPhone is not available in many places on planet Earth. It isn't the responsibility of this article to cover each situation. Although that article mentioned is a reliable source, I've yet to see the situation addressed by any Apple executive or PR person. The only reason the Cisco case was mentioned here was that the iPhone wasn't available anywhere, and therefore it had a world-wide impact. If it wasn't for the agreement between Apple/Cisco, I think the phone would've been named something else. But now that "iPhone" is the official name, it becomes a country-by-country situation. Once the iPhone in Canada becomes official, then we can tack that onto the list of countries. But until then... Groink (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark Issues 

message: On December 1 2007, Tusmobil, Slovenian mobile operator, started selling "unlocked" iPhones  without official contract with Apple, which caused a lot of confusion with Apple Europe, local media and local Apple representatives.
Spanish company SevenClick, based on information from a manager at Telefónica, announced on their technology blogConfirmed! Telefonica Spain expects 3G iPhone on May, SevenClick, 2007-11-09 that Telefónica Spain expects to be shipping 3G iPhones by May 2008.iPhone to get 3G in May 2008, The Register, 2007-11-19.
The iPhone normally prevents access to its media player and web features unless it has also been activated as a phone with an authorized carrier. On July 3 2007, Jon Lech Johansen reported on his blog that he had successfully bypassed this requirement and unlocked the iPhone's other features with a combination of custom software and modification of the iTunes binary. He published the software and offsets for others to use.
<B><I>Mugunth</I></B>(ping me!!!,contribs) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to hazard a guess, it would be for two reasons.  First, there isn't another section of the article more appropriate for that information at this times, and second, with the iPhone being so new there isn't very much information to fill out a "history" section so it was put there to pad it out a little. -- Atama(CHAT) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's all conjecture.  Even though it is sourced conjecture, it's still conjecture, and un-encyclopoedic.  I'm erasing all the guessed release dates.  Ehurtley (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why do these appear in History??? 

message: The speed of the 1176 part is 412 Mhz after the 1.1.2 update.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.75.138 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong cpu speed 

message: The article says
 The iPhone does not support Flash or Java technology.
however the 2 sources it cites for this do not confirm the claim that it does not support Java. So at least the 2nd reference (the one to Markoff, John. That iPhone Has a Keyboard, but It’s Not Mechanical) which is irrelevant to that statement should be removed from after the sentence.
Then, further clarification is needed on this statement. It's written in the context of the web browser. Even if the web browser of the iPhone does not support Java applets, that does not mean that the iPhone does not support standard Java J2ME games such as Jamtris. If it is indeed the case that the iPhone doesn't support those, either, I think that needs to be mentioned separately. This is definitely relevant information, since that's a feature that most other modern cell phones have.
88.217.85.118 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=10189 Is this link clear enough? The company that makes Java is begging Apple to include it in the iPhone. Can't get more compelling evidence than that. Groink (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Java support? 

message: I would like to suggest that this text on the iPhone page 'The web browser displays full web pages as opposed to simplified pages as on most non-smartphones.' be updated to include a link to another Wikipedia page which lists links to websites that have iPhone specific websites! Like this:
"The web browser displays full web pages as opposed to simplified pages as on most non-smartphones but there are many websites that have developed an iPhone specific layout for users accessing their sites from an iPhone."
AndrewGoldy (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, I predict that website listing will be deleted very soon. That article violates WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL, where Wikipedia articles should not be used as a list of external links. Groink (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it still fails. It has nothing to do with how you write it. The purpose of the article alone is what fails to qualify it as an acceptable article on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safari & iPhone specific websites 

message: The Hardware>Audio section says that you can get video out of the headset jack with a "three way jack plug." This seems very unlikely to me, because they would either have to squeeze at least five electrical contacts into the jack or they would have to re-purpose the microphone contact. In addition, this capability would be unnecessary because you can get composite or component video and audio out of the dock connector using adapters sold at the Apple store. Plus, the Apple store does not sell this headset to video adapter, which makes me doubt its existence. I will probably delete that statement unless someone corrects me.Fluoborate (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been deleted, but here's a source for the fact that there's no video out of the headset jack: . Enobeno (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video from the headset jack? 

message: I apologize if this is considered irrelevant, but is it at all worth mentioning Blendtec grinding an iPhone to mere dust and selling its remains on ebay? And have their been any viruses of any kind developed for the iPhone, and I do the support the idea that there should be a stronger balance of view on the article.  If the author's not inclined to add criticisms to his article, allow someone to insert  valid, rational, verifiable counterpoints.  That's the wiki in Wikipedia, isn't it?
-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first trojan is out in the wild, but the current one only infects people that modify the security of their phone so they can install third party apps. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Trojan, not a virus.  There's a huge difference, you have to install this program yourself to get it, it looks like you can't be "infected" by it. -- Atamachat 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be why I said it was a trojan and did not say that it was a virus. Heck, I even linked to the article. As far as the use of infect... Whether one downloads it on one's own accord or has it inflicted upon your computer, the terminology is the same. The kid said it was a patch in preparation for 1.1.3, but instead it replaced files in the \bin with files that displayed the word "shoe" on the screen. Not exactly the most malicious of things a trojan can do, but it certainly is an "infection". --Bobblehead (rants) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth mentioning? 

message: The article states that YouTube was going to have all of their videos converted to an iPhone-compatible format by the third quarter of 2007. Well the third quarter has come and gone so does anyone know if YouTube has indeed finished their conversion of their videos or is it still an ongoing process? Also, the wording in this article needs to be carefully reviewed because there are many proposed "possibilities" and "potential future features" that may be introduced or may have already been introduced; care should be taken to make sure that the article remains up-to-date as much and as quickly as possible. Rajrajmarley (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they may have already done it. It's just that they didn't announce it. Also, that statement you read is un-cited, so it could very well be original research on the part of the editor who wrote it. Unless the statement is cited, don't trust it! Since you're a registered user, you can do the research and make the additions/edits here. As for the wording, I talked about that a few days ago in this very talk page. And I agree with you 100-percent - you CANNOT be using words that may lead to someone believing that although a feature is not available today, it will be available tomorrow. Groink (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube video conversion 

message: A solution for the jailbreak links problem might be to simply add a link to the iPhone category on DMOZ, which is pretty complete.
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Systems/Handhelds/Smartphones/iPhone/  
The DMOZ category has a link to the wikipedia iPhone article. 
~kara
204.210.204.190 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, Wikipedia is not Google. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever you feel is necessary.  Regardless, go read WP:EL (and for that matter WP:No personal attacks).  Let me summarize, a few directly related links is OK -- hence the link to Apple's site and their few providers.  Links to other sites that simply aggregate information is not.  This DMOZ page is exactly that. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually DMOZ is okay, there's even a template for adding DMOZ links on the WP:EL page, I guess you missed that. -- Atamachat 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed, in fact it is always preferred to have the official link in the article, plus a DMOZ link to prevent link abusing in subjects that have a number of fans (like games, Apple and Web 2.0). Personally, I like the article having only links to official sites, but if someone wants to add a DMOZ link because he found it useful, I don't see it as harmful. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMOZ iPhone Category 

message: Does anyone know the official month of the year the Version 2 iPhone will be released? The article has yet to be updated as it still refers to the new release as 2008. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple is known to keep a tight lid on things. Even if a rumor site announced the date, we can't post it on Wikipedia because the source would lack credibility, and that Wikipedia does not allow rumors to go into articles. Groink (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New iPhone version 

message: As of february 5, there is now a 32gb version available--Sean7021 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF???? You posted this on the wrong article. The iPhone is only available in 8 and 16GB. Groink (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But I love to see one. -- Taku (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He means the iPod touch. The iPhone only has 16GB. :P --DeathShot39 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  32gb version 

message: grams are more official, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.60.243 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that they're generally used by more of the world than the other.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two largest groups of English speaking people on Earth are the United States and United Kingdom. Seeing this is the English Wikipedia, the English units should be used seeing the majority of English-native speakers use it. Also, the iPhone (and all other Apple products) is an American-developed product, and all the weights and measurements given by Apple are English units, with the metric units usually given in parenthesis. If this was the Japanese Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, I'd expect the opposite. Groink (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter a damn as long as they are both there. not really worth arguing over. Towel401 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4.8 oz (135 g) OR 135 g (4.8 oz)