Talk:IPhone/Archive 2

message: I see that Roguegeek moved and redirected the iPhone article to Apple iPhone, saying "redirected to proper naming".  How is "Apple iPhone" more proper than "iPhone"?  Other Apple products, like the iPod, MacBook, and AirPort, aren't so-named, and I think iPhone is more compliant with WP:NAME, which says, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". schi talk 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's name is iPhone, not Apple iPhone. Just as the Wii isn't Nintendo Wii. Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be moved back. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked an admin to help us. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be moved back too, good call on getting an admin's attention. This page is gonna get busy pretty quick. fintler 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys should check out every single article on a product here. It's a Honda Accord and not just Accord. It's a Sony Ericsson S710a and not the S710a. And so on, and so on. Everything has the manufacturer first. This one with iPhone will especially have that considering iPhone is a name for several products. The iPhone page will more than likely turn into a disambiguous page. You guys should also check out naming conventions and styles at WP:MOS. Yes, please get an admin over here to check this out and set this straight. Roguegeek (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still iPod, iBook Wii, PlayStation, Xbox. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, maybe you should check out every such article first, since you clearly haven't!  For example, why is the Mini not at BMC Mini?  The answer is that the MoS suggests using a title that will most useful for searching and linking.  All these guidelines do is suggest things that are rather common sense.  There are rather obvious reasons, for example, that your examples have their respective titles, which have nothing to do with obeying your made-up rule.  If you can point out a specific passage of the MoS that supports your argument, please do so.  --67.172.164.179 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have fully protected Apple iPhone as a redirect. You see, if you check the history section of both articles, you will notice that anonymous contributed to both articles. For the sake of not losing their contributions, I chose one and left it open. As you can imagine, we can't have two articles talking about the same. At a later date we will try to make a history merge between both articles, but it will be pretty hard because this article already has many, many deleted revisions. You can discuss later where to put the article, for now, accept contributions from everyone in this article. -- ReyBrujo 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, have you noticed that the talk page is still at Apple iPhone? :( -- ReyBrujo 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The name on Apple's site reads "iPhone". Since TV is pronounced "Apple Tee Vee", this could be read as "Apple Eye Phone". Lowmagnet 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep the article here until everything is settled down (I am guessing a week more of gossips and stuff), and then you can request a move to see if there is consensus to actually do it. -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you read the page www.apple.com/appletv/ you will see that they always call the product "Apple TV" while on iPhone located at www.apple.com/iphone/ they call it iPhone, not Apple iPhone. Not once on the product page do they say "Apple iPhone", only "iPhone". Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's curious!  In the keynote, Jobs had a slide up with the following names: Mac, iPod, iPhone, and TV.  No iPhone in sight.  I think the limited use of iPhone on the webpage may be an oversight.  Who knows?  We should wait and see like Rey says.  --67.172.164.179 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does this page come up, not the Linksys iPhone?  It's Cisco's trademark, and I'm sure the courts will agree.  At least go to a disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.71.37.171 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can Cisco employes please leave Wikipedia to unbiased people? Yes, I am talking to you 171.71.37.171. Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite frankly, the only reason most people knew about the Cisco iPhone is because of all the speculation about the Apple iPhone. Most folks searching for it on Wikipedia will be looking for Apple's version, so the current method would be the most correct. -- Kesh 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I redirected it to this article. And btw, I find that this iPhone and linksys iPhone is the same problem like with Cisco and CISCO Security Private Limited. --Have a nice day. Running 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, didn't know what to do. Tcpekin 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Its actually a different problem. Cisco vs. CISCO. Cisco is the name of the company while CISCO is simply an acronym for another agancy. The actual name of CISCO is Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation. And there are no trademark violations. The official name of CISCO is Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation, not CISCO, but the official name of Cisco is Cisco Systems. And just so you know, there is a disambiguation page for this conflict, like there should here: Cisco (disambiguation).--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, trademark issues don't matter. Wikipedia only reports on official names, and we have no care for who owns what trademark. Scepia 01:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that there are over a dozen articles with the term "Cisco" in them, rather than the two for iPhone. A disambiguation page would be overkill, in this case. -- Kesh 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move/redirect of [[iPhone]]

message: it's operation system was never called "Mac OS X" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.178.142.237 (talk • contribs).
:It's been called "Mac OS" ever since Mac OS 8. bCube(talk,contribs); 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they never did say it ran Mac OS X. It runs OS X (since Mac is their computer line, one assumes that OS X is distinct from Mac OS X, which is for computers). While ambiguous for the moment, it seems safe to assume that the use of "OS X" rather than "Mac OS X" is deliberate- particularly since it is extremely unlikely that they managed to get the full Mac OS X implemented on this tiny, tiny device. Does anyone actually believe an intel core 2 duo lives in there? I will make the change in the article. Danny Pi 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. Of course they are using Mac OS X on it. They have an entire segment in the keynote describing that it's the same one that they are using on the desktop. "Wy would we run such a sophisticated operating system?",  "We've been doing this on mobile computers for years", "It got awsome security and the right apps", "It has Cocoa..", "It has all the audio and video that OSX is famous for" <-- These statements would be nonsensical if Jobs wasn't referring to _Mac_ OS X. It might not me running on x86 or PPC, but if it runs on ARM.. who cares? It's still Mac OS X! Stipped down, sure.. but it's still Mac OS X! Steve pointed this out specificaly. He just did not say "Mac". Big deal.. He's probaly spoken about Mac OS X on Macs without saying "Mac" OS X. -- Henriok 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't apple have to release the code it has ported, if the license covering that code requires it?  If it *is* a real OS X (as in codebase-similar to Mac OS X), then this should be released before the iPhone itself.  So yes, it is REALLY important to figure out what's actually running on the iPhone, as it could be violating all sorts of licenses.  82.35.107.44 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. You're thinking of the GPL, OS X is licensed under BSD.Darkov 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OS X, not Mac OS X 

message: Before it was annnouced the iphone was one of those apple rumors that wouldnt go away esp the last 4 months i think the history and big thing we all know it was on the internet deserves its own section in the "iPhone Article" - QACJared
:Might or might not be appropriate to include in the article.  If someone wants to give it a shot, there is info at User:Schi/iPhone about the predictions, etc. schi talk 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only notable, IMO, if a non-trivial news source gave mention of the rampant rumors. Was there, by chance, a NYTimes or CNet article specifically about the rumors? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet there might be.  Most news articles about the product - both today and earlier - have at least mentioned the rumors, or how hotly anticipated it is.  I just found this January 2006 BusinesWeek more generally about the Apple rumor mill.  I'll look some more. schi talk 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6244705.stm Lewismistreated 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is anybody going to do it at all? -HuBmaN!!!! 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: iPhone Rumor Mill

message: Will this phone have a vibrate feature? gujamin 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's assumed in cell phones these days unless specifically stated otherwise. — ceejayoz talk 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It will have vibrate.  The sensors will turn off briefly as iPhone receives a call when vibrate is switched on.  Obviously nothing can be put on this site until Apple announces more specs making it officialSjenkins7000 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vibrate? 

message: Anyone know what type of CPU it uses or what speed?  Is it the Intel XScale at 624 MHz?  --70.48.68.147 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple hasn't said anything yet. Sloverlord 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting... http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2379  hmmmm. Sfacets 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone keeps on adding Samsung Arm Cortex or something to this article. This is only a rumor and after even following the reference they added, there is only an engadget article speculating that Samsung has silicon in this phone. It never mentions exactly what they have in the phone and certainly never mentions Arm or that specific Samsung model. Please keep this off until we actually know what processor they are using. I think speculation in general is bad in an encyclopedia article anyway. 208.18.85.196 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no one knows. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36857. Ruw1090 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Nvidia? http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/shownews.asp?title=Apple+chooses+Nvidia+for+iPhone+processor&num=9767 208.18.85.196 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU type/speed? 

message: Can everyone who is a representative of Cisco, PLEASE leave Wikipedia to unbiased editors. 171.71.37.171 is one, and I'm sure the others are so as well. Believe it or not Wikipedia is very much capable of policing itself. Also, what you are doing will only make getting consensus harder. Please have a look at WP:NAME and you will see why this article is reserved for Apple's iPhone. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I welcome employees of any company (as well as those unemployed), so long as they abide by the five pillars. As it is  has edited here from a Cisco IP, and I'm guessing that is the same person as . --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cisco employees should read the guideline WP:COI, on conflict of interest. schi talk 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Havok, I am appalled by your statement. At wikipedia, everyone (besides vandals) is allowed. If you don't believe that, perhaps it is you who needs to leave. Simply direct all cisco employees to WP:COI and also Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Then, if they do not ahere to the rules, then action must be taken (perhaps blocking). As for who gets the iphone article, not everyone agrees with you havock, as you can tell from this talk page and others like it. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KICK OTHERS OFF WIKIPEDIA.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What I tried to convey was that Cisco people shouldn't come here and try and turn the tide as Wikipedia (meaning all of us) are pretty much capable of dealing with disputes and such as this without them coming here and screaming over the fact that iPhone doesn't redirect to the Linksys phone. If consensus decides to move the article then WP as a whole has decided. Wiki Fanatic I meant nothing along the lines of which you speak, and if you didn't understand me you could simply have asked what I meant. Seeing as you redirected me to so many pages, maybe you should have a look at WP:AGF. P.S. When I wrote "please leave Wikipedia to unbiased editors" I didn't mean physically leave Wikipedia, but leave the editing to people who can deal with this in an unbiased matter. Seeing as being biased will get you no where. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So by implication it is okay for Apple employees and fanboys, yes? This is not encyclopaedic, it is a free promotional feature based on Apple PR, internet rumour and claims made by people who have never even touched the phone let alone used it.  Whether you agree or not, there is some justification for the "pro-Cisco" (sic) stance given the court case - and if you cannot understand and appreciate that position then you should not be editing here and claiming an "anti-bias" standpoint.  Jesus, did you really call everyone here (except the Cisco employees, i.e. anyone who is not an Apple employee or fanboy) "unbiased"?! LOL! 62.25.106.209 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to be a mixture of official Apple statements and unsubstantiated claims from people who have never even seen the phone 'in the flesh' so to speak let alone operated one 'in anger'.  Given this, why haven't you complained about Apple employees on this page?  I think I know the answer.  This page is a free promotional advertisment for Apple Inc., not an encyclopaedic entry. 86.17.247.135 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you point out which part of the article is a "free advertisement for Apple"? Here we discuss how to improve the article, not just voicing opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cisco employees on this page 

message: * LG Electronics
** LG KE850
* Prada
:Be very careful dude.  Mention of LG (and Rio, Creative, Commodore, Sony and Doug Engelbart) can get you seriously in trouble with the Apple fanboys. Save your energy for when Jobs (and then immediately the fanboys) claim something really stupid, like Apple invented the computer. 86.17.247.135 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The LG KE850 has already won the iF product design award 2007. Pictures of it was released before the iPhone. It was even speculation that the LG was infact the iPhone . Kricke 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy between LG KE850 (a.k.a. LG Prada Phone) and Apple iPhone 

message: All reports that I have heard either confirm there is no voice control on the iPhone or that there is no evidence to suggest it.  I suggest removing this information under specifications Scottydude 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and go ahead and remove it yourself.  Unsourced inaccurate information may be removed by anyone at any time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done so. Agreed, this is unconfirmed speculation, so it has no place in the features list. -- Kesh 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the way people always say be bold, but then when you are, someone always leaves you a really pissed message on your talk page. 68.161.91.131 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold doesn't mean you're always right. I've had my bold edits reverted/edited too. I've had others that became a permanant part of the article. Anyway, this is off topic for the article. -- Kesh 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice Activation

message: An interesting reading. -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting, has quite a few statements of fact in it, it would be good to incorporate some of those facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the name

message: How did the specifications at http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/specs.html of:
Wireless data:  Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) + EDGE + Bluetooth 2.0 
morph into
Integrated WiFi (802.11b/802.11g), EDGE and Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR and A2DP
in the Wikipedia entry?
I've seen no reference to A2DP for the iPhone.  To the contrary, the Apple iPhone headset shown breifly during Job's product intro was clearly a mono (HS/HF like) device, not a stereo A2DP one.  Likewise, the shown iPhone stereo headphone with integrated mic was clearly a wired device, not a BlueTooth one.
Is there any real evidence for A2DP inclusion in the specifications?
John0902 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I spent about 8 seconds Googling and found several sources saying that it does have A2DP, including one that is very critical of the phone (1 2).  However, in my quick search I didn't come across any reliable sources so it should probably be removed until it can be confirmed.  —bbatsell ¿? 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed... those sites might've gotten the A2DP information from here, for all we know.   -/- Warren 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the edit that added "EDR and A2DP".  The external link added at the same time lists neither. AlistairMcMillan 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A2DP 

message: Please take your time and go to the article and compare it to the Apple fact sheet....  Do we want to just reprint fact sheets? Our job is to make sure that the article reflects "all that there is to know about the iPhone". My suggestions are as follow, three categories. 
1. Inside the iPhone: Re-establish the parts suppliers list. This is important knowldege. Knowledge is what Wiki is about
2. Developers: Describe the third party developer relationship. Windgets but not applications. For now. At least that is what transpires from the NYT interview. That is an Aplle decision. Most Cingular handsets supports downloads from third party Java applications. It is an important part of the iPhone: Focus on maintaining the functional integrity of the platform and the user experience. There is a developer program and it's Widgets. That good and useful information. No java spagheti code. 
3. Positioning: Describe the relative positioning of the iPhone with the other camera-phones, mucis-phones. The iPhone is a Great Music-Phone (iPod) with a great Camera-Phone (Editing software, great screen, automatic switch from portrait to landscale etc...) That is part of the Apple, iLife experience. That is really what the iPhone is about: A camera-phone inside an iPod all nicely integrated with a great user experience. 
I think that this will help the iPhone article carry more real knowledge and be most helpful to anyone wanting to know about the iPhone. 
Thoughts? HuskyMoon 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're aking for opinions, speculation and original research, none of which belong here.Darkov 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making the iPhone article better and improving on the Apple Fact Sheet

message: Will this phone be able to have AIM on it? I've never tried SMS before, and I don't want to pay for instant messages. I'm a noob. Sam 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to David Pogue, no 3rd party applications can be run on the iPhone. Keep in mind that AIM would require use of data, and if you don't have WiFi in your area, you will have to pay for the expensive EDGE data network from Cingular. Scepia 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we'll have to use WebAIM to use AIM? And what about ICQ? I don't know much about it, but I've heard it's fully compatible with AIM and it's SMS. I don't know. Can somebody help me on this? (Keep in mind, noob)Sam 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please fine an iPhone discussion forum. This is a talk page about an encyclopedia article. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOL Instant Messenger 

message: Please keep an eye out for edits by Wikoogle. He seems intent on linkspamming this article to promote his rather lame blog, in particular he attempts to cite his blog as a reference for facts in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 22:30, January 16, 2007
: Suckered as well.  AlistairMcMillan 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I'd just concluded that Suckered was a sockpuppet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is stopping by his website, with good reason. If it happens I will eat a printed version of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspamming by Wikoogle 

message: I keep adding a tone tag to the Specifications section, only to have it removed or when it is turned to prose reverted to a bullet list. Just because PS2 and SLVR has a section that is similar doesn't mean we should add a specs section that looks like the back of a software box sitting in a store. Find me a featured article with a similarly bulleted specs section and then we're talk'n, but if you can't then I vote the section should be turned back to prose. What do people think? JoeSmack Talk 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles with similarly bulleted specs: Commodore 64, Nintendo Entertainment System, F-4 Phantom II, Convair B-36, likely more. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: Over the Lowercase tag edit war! Good job, guys! --BenBurch 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Topics with many fanboys and detractors usually make it there, so it is something expectable. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohoo! We're special! Though you'd think all the other cruft on this page would be more notable than the lowercase template... -- Kesh 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ReyBrujo, please stop being a jerk. Calling people 'fanboys and detractors' isn't helping anything. 1ne 08:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations!  This talk page has made it into [[WP:LAME]] 

message: I removed the logo with the following edit summary:
"Apple iPhone" is already stated. A graphic of Apple's logo doesn't need to be injected into the opening sentence. It breaks word flow and doesn't provide any useful information.
This was reverted (the logo was re-added) with the following edit summary:
disagree, it adds valuable information on how the iPhone is portrayed...
I contend that the logo does not, in fact, add any valuable information, and possibly no information at all. The only thing I can think of is that it shows that Apple places its logo with the iPhone in its advertising and promotional materials; this is in no way remarkable, since Apple places its logo with all its products in its advertising and promotional materials.
Additionally, three words into the opening sentence is a poor place to have a parenthetical note that contains a non-ASCII graphic. It definitely breaks the flow of the sentence. The inclusion of the logo may be worth mentioning later in the article, and perhaps in better context, but it seems distinctly out of place here. Comments? --S0uj1r0 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we can use it if we're representing the product it is being used for, that is not against copyright. Jasca Ducato 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the Apple logo go under Trademark, not Copyright? Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is absurd... We are writing about the Apple iPhone and we are concerned about being sued by Apple.... The tail is wagging the dog. But the dog can live without the tail. Not the tail without the dog! 75.208.254.38 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right...anyway  still refers to it a "iPhone", not "Apple iPhone" or "[Apple logo] iPhone". I say remove it.--HereToHelp 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One click away to  reveals the name with the stylized apple icon. Perhaps they can't decide either. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We should always try to cut out on fair use when it is decoration, which i think it is here. Apple TV is the official name of that product, and iPhone is the official name of this product. Scepia 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a fair-use issue with the image, then bring the image up for deletion on those grounds. See WP:IfD. -- Kesh 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that image is used on Apple TV, were it makes sense. But iPhone is only put with the logo 1 time on Apple.com Scepia 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to throw in my reading of copyright law in this instance, the image in question is a glyph from an Apple-supplied font (located at Unicode U+F8FF).  Under U.S. copyright law, actual use of a typeface cannot be copyrighted or trademarked and is in the public domain.  You can find Wikipedia's PD summary on fonts here.  The image licensing should be switched from FU to . —bbatsell ¿? 04:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't help. I can state for a fact it doesn't show anything but a blank box on this machine, meaning folks without that font won't see the proper logo icon anyway. -- Kesh 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple logo graphic in opening sentence 

message: Engaget says there was a Reuters report, but I couldn't find it, it sounds like hearsay. I think it's premature to add that spec. But having said that it's almost certainly an ARM. There isn't really a reliable source on this. Darkov 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and I removed it from the article. The closest I could find was this article which merely postulates that the chip is an ARM. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intel's man in Italy says it's an XScale processor developed by Intel but sold to Marvell in late 2006. I added this information as well as reference. It seems like a very reasonable choice for Apple. And yes.. XScale is ARM based. -- Henriok 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I dunno if that says very much. You're essentially saying it's an ARM, which what an XScale is essentially. The architecture has been mucked around with somewhat, as is Intel's wont, but it performs much like modern ARMs. I would be truly shocked if this phone did not have an ARM in it. Chances are it has four or five. But really it's not very interesting speculating or repeating rumours. When the phone gets released someone will strip the phone down and tell us what it contains, but we all may be disappointed because I get the feeling that it will have one or more large chip packages with the Apple logo it and a cryptic number. Then we'll have to speculate some more. Darkov 14:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processor Specification 

message: Andy Ihnatko of the Chicago Sun-Times had 45 minutes with the iPhone and apparently received solid answers to some key questions regarding touch screen as fingers only, 3rd party apps, OSX version, etc. Full article is here. I'll leave it to other editors about if/how to incorporate into iPhone. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, developer support part is quite pertinent. Still would be better to get it coming directly from Apple though, and not through a reporter's review. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zim, it is an important part of the iPod's "total package". Andy Inhatko has it directly from Apple. 
Zim, one more thing. Something that we don't have in the spec and that was announced by Apple are the sensors. In particular the "Accelerometer". The light and proximity sensors are very specific, but the accelerometer provides for new funtionality. So maybe a subhead: Sensors with in the body: Accelerometer, Proximity, Light.
Note that the Accelerometer is significant enough to warrant its own Wiki article and a distinguising feature of the iPhone in some ways. And offcially announced by Apple.HuskyMoon 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find there is no separate proximity sensor in the iPhone. It almost certainly uses Synaptics' ClearPad technology, which has proximity sense as a part of its function. See this, at the bottom of the page. That page is also interesting because it puts the whole LG/Apple 'controversy' into perspective. The enabling tech for both phones seems to be ClearPad, their concept phone makes this plain. Most of the evident innovation in iPhone seem to come from this, although Jobs makes it seem like they are all Apple's. Of course the attention to detail and flair that Apple bring is what sets it apart, but at the end of the day expect to see a lot more phones that use a similar interface. I'd love to add some of this to the article, but none of it is confirmed as of yet. Hopefully one in June someone will pick through the flame wars and find this info. Darkov 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Ihnatko article 

message: Why no mention of Ive? His page says he designed the iPhone so he deserves a mention here as much as Jobs. 86.17.247.135 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a reference for us? -- Kesh 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it says it on both Ive's page and Apple Inc and neither have a reference so I assumed it was an indisputed fact.  Guess both pages will have to be amended. 86.17.247.135 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Ive 

message: There are many, it's a problem with the general tone of the article, like a mobile phone user guide. For example : 
"The iPhone allows conferencing, call holding, call merging, caller ID, and integration with other iPhone features. A playing song fades out when the user receives a call. Once the call is ended the music fades back on without delay." 
"Text messages are presented chronologically..." 
What next? - When a person makes a call, the iPhone emits electromagnetic microwaves? 
Also, how can the phone run a "stripped down version of Mac OS X 10.5" of the mac desktops when the former has an Xscale processor and macs are x86.
:I can think of a couple ways for this to be accurate, the most obvious being the existence of a non-public OS X build for Xscale, but until Apple tells us what they did it is just speculation. Regardless of the method used, the iPhone using a variant of Leopard is what's being reported.  MFNickster 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, people are grasping at straws. It's basically a lift from the Jobs presentation. Maybe people have been affected by Jobs' renown Reality Distortion Field and have turned into zombies mindlessly recounting their master's words. But back to the article, I think these petty facts should be judiciously removed. You're essentially right about the tone. But where you are wrong is in regards to the stripped down version of the OS. Basically they just recompile it for the new processor (or more properly new architecture or platform). They would have to rewrite some stuff, but not much. BSD Unix, the OS from whence OS X came, runs on everything from digital watches to super computers. They're all the same deep down inside, just a matter of scale. Credit must be given to the designers and programmers of BSD for providing such a scalable OS. Apple would have just pinched the source from some ARM compatible distribution for the stuff they needed. Anyone can do it. It's all free. Apple just do it well. Maybe we can add some of this to the article, I keep on seeing commentary along those lines.Darkov 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mac OS X uses stuff from BSD but there is a hell of lot more to it than that.  They don't use the BSD kernel.  They don't use the BSD window server.  Their APIs don't come from BSD.  Their file system doesn't come from BSD.  I could go on forever.  Please read up on the subject before sharing your opinions.  AlistairMcMillan 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? The Mach kernel was developed as a drop in replacement for the BSD kernel. Mac APIs run on top of Unix APIs in many cases. There are a million Unix filesystems. No-one in their right mind uses an X window server. So what? Do I have to go into mindless, off topic, detail to satisfy nerdy trainspotters whenever I try to make a point? Generally speaking Mac OS's lineage is BSD. Yes they added and removed stuff. I didn't say it was BSD. It's not Linux, is it?  What should have I said (without delivering a page long treatise on Unix development history)? Not only are you being off-topic, but you're being condescending. You assume I'm ignorant because I'm concise. I'm confident of my knowledge - you seem to be so insecure that you have to belittle others. Darkov 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, calm down Darkov. This is very close to a personal attack. -- Kesh 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, it was carefully crafted as such. Anyway it was in reply to a personal attack. I'm just using negative re-inforcement to discourage such behaviour. Darkov 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an excuse. Please see WP:CIVIL. And Alistair's comments, while blunt, were not an attack. -- Kesh 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh please, he said I was ignorant, without any evidence. Don't want to warn him too because he's an admin? Darkov 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not a personal attack. Your comments were incorrect. If you feel you were mistreated, please feel free to bring up an RfC. -- Kesh 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How were they incorrect? Have you got any basis for this or are you just issuing a dictum from up on high? That really illustrates your lack of balance. I have consistently presented a rationale in my replies meanwhile I get these pronouncements in reply. Darkov 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What you should have said is "Unless you have sources we don't know about, then all we can do right now is talk about stuff from Apple's PR because Apple are the only ones who have access to iPhones and everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced."  How about something like that.  Instead of your rant that all Apple had to do was "pinch" some stuff from "some ARM compatible distribution" and recompile it with the "scalable OS" that they got from "BSD Unix". AlistairMcMillan 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're avoiding my points. I can reply as I see fit as long as I stay on topic, which I was, and it was hardly a rant, it wasn't angry or emotional. I raised valid points relating to people's confusions about what is possible with the OS. Your mocking my casual speech just re-inforces my earlier point. Since this is off-topic, no more replies from me unless you take it to my talk page. If you dare. Darkov 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL by taunting. Warned. -- Kesh 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hardly. I'm responding with great restraint, and a little humour. Anyway I'm very much of the WP:FUCK school. Wikipedia is full of petty individuals who go around making righteous threats in the name of the rules, ignoring the positive contribution being made. They're a scourge on this place. This is a classic example (keep in mind that it all transpired within minutes of the article being created). Darkov 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, your own link seems to reinforce that you have a very aggressive manner of dealing with other editors. That is not a good thing on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And that's what you take from it? You don't think I should be annoyed by people tagging a new article incorrectly, persisting even after they admit they don't understand the subject matter? Then they threaten to have the article deleted after 30 minutes, while I'm working on it, even though taking one's time is a policy here, stubs abound, and collaboration with others (over time) is the norm? This is what I mean when I refer to your lack of balance, your one sided response to my contributions. It's quick to judge, assumes bad faith and is inflexible. You take issue with my style, which is direct and outspoken, but that's irrelevant if I make valid and reasoned contributions. Why shouldn't I make it plain when people are detracting from the of quality the work? I give no worse than I get. Your narrow and rigid interpretation of discourse around here just pushes the site toward mediocrity. Darkov 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me telling you that your statements about Mac OS X are wrong, is not a personal attack.  Example personal attacks: comparing User:86.17.247.135 to "teenagers and people who's emotional development is about as far along", comparing thestick or myself to a "nerdy trainspotter", accusing me of being condescending and insecure, and accusing J Milburn of being "bored and lonely".  And that's just from me glancing at your edits to this Talk page and the Comparison of wireless data standards Talk page.  Even your recent comments to Kesh border on a personal attack.  Please take a few minutes and read through Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  AlistairMcMillan 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you suggesting I was ignorant was a personal attack. You attacked my valid contribution, I criticised your attack. My comments reflect the behaviour and attitude I have to put up with - arrogant disruption of good work. I think it's very restrained considering. Anyway this is so off-topic. Why can't you take it to somewhere more relevant, a user talk page, or maybe the sandbox? Do the rules only apply to me and other people your disagree with? Is your exulted status beyond us serfs who must be silenced when we question the status quo? Darkov 12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sorry about my ignorance about the Mac OS X thing. thestick 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Don't apologise, it's a valid question, but it's a good idea to be circumspect when posting in public forums. Darkov 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too trivial 

message: Can we skip the whole smartphone thing and just say:
:The iPhone is a handheld device combining ...,...,... functionality.
-Gomm 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Sentance 

message: Can somebody put whether the phone vibrates or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobguy89 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vibrate 

message: I think our References are WAY too wikilinked!  This seems counter to the Manual of Style.  A reader is going to see a sea of blue and barely know where to click, or know that precisely where they click matters a great deal.  Given that we want this to be easy to the reader, I have a hard time seeing the merit of linking anything other than the article itself.  Not the author's name, not the source publication entry on wikipedia, and for heaven's sake, certainly not the date, nor the word "press release"!  Just how confusing do we want to be?  I think we are making it too hard for a person to effectively find the source material.  I'm all for linking to facilitate surfing, but any time I'm doing 2 links right next to each other so they run together as blue (i.e.--"foo bar") I think VERY carefully about whether I really need to do it.  But in our References we'll constantly have 4 links right next to each other!
--Jason C.K. 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive wikilinking within References?