Talk:IPhone

Move

75.208.12.15Wiki is about what is right and correct and not what is more "popular". The legitimate owner of the iPhone trademark in the US is Cisco. No question (USPTO). This is where the device was pre-announced. The fair way to solve this until resolved is to have the iPhone article be an article describing the litigation and in the header, obvious two links one to an article about the LinkSys iPhone and another one to the Apple "iPhone".

Move the Linksys phone back NOW. Apple cannot call their cell phone the iPhone because Cisco has the trademark. EricJosepi 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find that aricle here: iPhone (Linksys), and the trademark issues are not our concern. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people looking for an article on iPhone are looking for the Apple product. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with ZimZalaBim on this, I don't think even a fraction of people looking for the iPhone will be looking for the Linksys one. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple did call it iPhone, you can't undo that, Eric, Sorry.-9.January 2007, Anonymus

I agree, the vast majority of users searching for iPhone will be looking for Apple's product.Barang 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what people will be looking for? Cisco owns the copyright to the name, that should trump a proposed or concept product name.

Get your facts straight, Mr. unsigned. Cisco holds the IPhone trademark, not copyright. This has nothing to do with what people call it, or what Wikipedia should refer to it as. 4.242.147.109 17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Second ZimZalaBim. iPhone for the Apple product and iPhone (Linksys) for the other. At worst, a disambig, but most everyone will be thinking of the Apple product. Me mi mo 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SO when the C&D comes down and I'm right can we move it back? EricJosepi 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You honestly think they haven't already worked this out?? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Already working out agreement with Cisco over use of trademark.[1] CapYoda 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

you're slow on the news eh? they use of the name was pending but apple didn't comply so cisco is currently suing them. :P

uh it was posted yesterday, as you can see from the link. CapYoda 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not when the cease & desist comes down. If Apple stops using the name, and the general public stops using the name, then it may be reasonable to rename the article. See WP:NAME: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Wikipedia article naming is not the milieu for arbitrating trademark infringements. schi ^talk 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There will be no C&D. See Cisco's statement. -- Kesh 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco is indeed suing to protect their trademark.[2] But I think it's still premature to move the article. MFNickster 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that announcement today. As of my post last night, they were still talking about the proposed agreement with Apple. Strange they did a 180 like that so quickly. Either Apple told them "No," or Cisco decided to try and force Apple to pay more money by filing a lawsuit. Bad business, no matter whose fault it is. -- Kesh 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) MFNickster 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say put this at Apple iPhone, like we do when two different companies make products with the same name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's at least two other iPhones out there, see [3]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Psounds like notable software too, hundreds of thousands of downloads, an article in wired, a minor war with IRC operators. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

wow, the apple fanboys are rabid here... regardless of what most people will think, the iPhone has been trademarked since 1996... it's cisco's product and the title of iPhone should lead to disambiguous AT THE LEAST with an iPhone(apple) and iPhone(linksys) :P

I agree completely and have modified the redirect page. It should now redirect to the cisco iphone page.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The most notable of these phones, at this moment, is Apple's iPhone. Thus, the page should stay in Apple's favor as most people will be looking for this article, not Cisco's or anyone else's. If/when (whatever) Cisco get the injunction against Apple's use of the name, the page can be redirected to a disambig until a new name is released by Apple. So instead of "rabid Cisco" fanboys crying over the fact that Apple got to use the iPhone article space, they should concentrate on making the iPhone (Linksys) article better. :P Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The term 'iPhone' should be a disambiguation and people should be free to select whether they mean to navigate to the "real" iPhone from Linksys, or what Apple is hoping they will be able to call their cell phone. Apple fanboys really are rabid. To muck up the Wikipedia by claiming a clearly disputed (and documented copyrighted) product name as an Apple product is inappropriate.

It doesn't matter what people are looking for, the Cisco iPhone came first. Apple should change the name.

It doesn't matter what came first, the Apple iPhone is the better known phone, and gets the article. This happens all the time for other articles with the same name - the criteria is always which on is better known. I think we can agree that in this case it is the Apple iPhone. Sfacets 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! It is *not* reasonable to assume the public is searching *only* for an apple product. It would be more reasonable and unbiased to provide links to both ipod (Linksys) and ipod (Apple). whointhe 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable person on the planet would concede that the vast majority of people searching Wikipedia for iPhone (2 days after the much-anticipated launch) are looking for the Apple device. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is so wrong. iPhone belongs to Linksys, not Apple. Those who reason that most people are searching for iPhone Apple and hence this is fine to default iPhone to the Apple product are wrong. Does "Apple" default to Apple the company or Apple the fruit? Guys, this is wikipedia, not Macworld blog. Stop the fanboyism now. 12.47.208.50 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of people are looking for an Apple product. For an unbiased approach, include links to both iphone (Linksys) and iphone (Apple). --Whointhe 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this page actually looking for the Linksys phone but for some very odd reson i was directed to the apple phone, surely i should have been redirected to a disambiguous page. The Linksys phone is named iphone (Linksys) so why isnt the apple titled iphone (Apple) it just seems to me Wiki is becomeing Apple orientated, they copy and others inovate, so why should they have the first rights to Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.19.93 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 January 2007.

I agree. A disambiguation page has been created, IPhone (disambiguation), and iPhone should be redirected to that page, with the article about Apple's phone at Apple iPhone. There is no reason to assume that most people would be looking specifically for the Apple iPhone, especially given the extensive press coverage of the controversy. In fact, many people are looking for information on the controversy itself and what it is that Cisco is fighting for. It may be preferable to create a separate page for the controversy itself, or put such information on the disambiguation page. -- Istill316 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:NAME. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuately, WP:NAME applies, yes, but your interpetation of it is based on an unvertifiable assumption. since we cannot agree one way or the other, the disambiguation page is a great compromise. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 08:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME rules over WP:DISAMBIG. So, according to policy iPhone goes to Apple's iPhone regardless of your feelings towards this. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it may be correct that at this moment in time, more people will be looking for Apple's iPhone. However, that has at least a little to do with short-term buzz less than a week after the product's launch, but that doesn't mean that it will remain this way for the forseeable future. (Cisco could launch a Linksys iPhone marketing campaign and raise just as much interest.) A more timeless method would be to redirect iPhone to redirect to the disambiguation page. I implore the involved persons to remove their biases and look at this in a reasonable fashion. No matter what the result of the lawsuit, this is not the best use of Wikipedia. If Apple wins this legal struggle or settles, there will still be more than one iPhone out there, and if Apple does not win it, then the page will need to be renamed to the new product's name anyways. 209.181.233.233 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "i-" practically belongs to Apple. ipod. imac. So many products of theirs either have an apple or an i before it. Cisco is just sueing because they can. Stealthkey 14:16 13 January 2007

iPhone release features Wikipedia screenshot

Apple's iPhone video on its website features an iPhone bookmarked for Wikipedia, and a screenshot of the iPod article. Very cool. - Nunh-huh 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice. :) Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) - oops, on reviewing, the link is to the iPod article. But still cool. :) - Nunh-huh 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice of them to give us a shoutout. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And here it is: Image:Wikipedia on IPhone.jpg - Nunh-huh 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, fair use images only in the article namespace, not in talk pages. -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How absurd. - Nunh-huh 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can fit it into the article? Sfacets 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course we could, but the idea was to present it here first for discussion. That's what talk pages are for. There's an actual rule that fair use images are not for user pages; if there's an actual rule against placing such images on talk pages, it's absurd, because presenting an image to be discussed is an actual fair use. If it's decided to use the image in the article, we might want to photoshop the "dot" on it out (it shows the location of the imaginary finger on the touchscreen, and I doubt that it appears on the actual screen of the iPhone). - Nunh-huh 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be cropped to remove the title, but photoshopping out the dot would be overkill, the dot doesn't distract from the overall image. When the article gets a little longer (ie there is more space available) we could insert a modified version Sfacets 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are some people so sensitive to fair use and copyright? It's not like Wikipedia is profiting from the image being on either the article or the talk page. 139.168.56.35 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After a while people becaome rule nazis. That or the bureaucracy makes them go nuts. Whatever comes first. ; ) Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if we aren't sensitive to copyrights, then we'll face lawsuits that could destroy the project. Proper adherence and handling to these issues protect the project. It has nothing to do with 'rule nazis'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Move/redirect of iPhone

I see that Roguegeek moved and redirected the iPhone article to Apple iPhone, saying[4] "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)

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)

Should be moved back. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to help us. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's still iPod, iBook Wii, PlayStation, Xbox. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

There, it's back to iPhone again. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Also, have you noticed that the talk page is still at Apple iPhone? :( -- ReyBrujo 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

When one types in iphone without a capital P, the redirect goes to the Cisco iPhone. As this article is named iPhone and the Cisco version is named iPhone (Linksys), shouldn't the redirect for iphone without the capital P be to this page, as it is correctly titled? I don't know if it should be changed. Thanks, Tcpekin 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, didn't know what to do. Tcpekin 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Developer Program

We must cover developing applications for the Apple iPhone, including "syncing them" from iTunes. This is a very important part of the Apple strategy to have the iTunes "vending machine" ( similar to the BREW Qualcomm model) feeding applications for the Apple iPhone (and the iPod) 75.208.152.191 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no information available on the apple site for developing applications for the ipod or iPhone. There now are several games for the iPod available, developed by external developers but there isn't any information on how to become an iPod or iPhone application developer. Anyone know something about this? 75.210.58.197 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For now Apple's position is that there are *NO* third party applications and therefore no developers. This must be clarified in the body of the article. It is a choice that Apple is making, right or wrong. It is a different choice as all other smart phones have a developer program. It must be emphasized and not burried in the specification. This is an important part of how the iPhone is differentiated from other smartphones and camera phones. In fact over time it make become the biggest differentiaton. 75.209.23.23 13:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gmaps

is the ability to do Google Maps, etc, really a special feature due to a special agreement with Google? I presumed it was just part of the normal web browsing capabilities, and that it can also do MapQuest or Yahoo or any online service (but they just chose to feature Google). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - see now they have a dedicate Gmaps application built in. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording, but could be better... Sfacets 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GPS

I don't think it has GPS. someone confirm and edit the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.89.171 (talk • contribs).

The presentation suggested that it has some sort of location awareness, but I think that if it had GPS, Jobs would have explicitly said GP-freakin-S. I speculate they may be using an API that Cingular has that offers rough radio triangulation from cell towers. It's accurate to within a few hundred feet instead of a couple feet like GPS, but cheaper to implement in hardware, if I understand correctly. I put this speculation here not because it belongs in the article, but because it might help avoid a rash of helpful "IT HAS GPSSSS!!!11!!eleven!" edits to the main article. Official word from Apple shouldn't be far behind, I'm certain this is something they'll get a lot of questions about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in with a citation from MSNBC. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when they talk about location awareness they refer to the fact that it senses when you are holding it to your ear (like a phone) and turns off the screen to save power and prevent accidental botton press with your cheek. Biglig 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nowhere in the keynote did Steve say anything about GPS capabilities, and MSNBC seems to be the only one reporting that it does (Microsoft anyone?) I have made changes accordingly. Sfacets 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the MSNBC source is actually from AP. CNN ran basically the same article off of AP. My personal impression is the same as others: I think AP's reporter mistook the google map demonstrations for GPS. 65.220.90.243 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I thought there might be location awareness was that the Keynote had him demonstrating Google Maps, and there was an off-the-cuff mention on the live keynote feed about it knowing where he was because it had the Moscone center already set. A friend re-watched the video of the presentation last night, and it appears to have been bookmarked, so it's unlikely that it has anything like GPS or triangulation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

""The iPhone is really going to revolutionize the world as Steve described it," Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak said following Jobs's keynote speech today. (Wozniak, wearing a bike helmet, had been cornered on his Segway scooter by reporters and Apple fans outside Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, and was answering questions.)

Wozniak had two regrets about the device: that it will come with 8 Gbytes of memory rather than 40 Gbytes and that it had no built-in GPS hardware." [5] TheNewMinistry 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OS X, not Mac OS X

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)

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)

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)

I removed the citation stating that iPhones run the full version of Mac OS X, since it was a Newsweek opinion piece and did not make any attempt to justify its claim. The author of that piece seems to have just been confused. — Epastore 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not Mac OS X strictly speaking it's "iPhone OS X" since iPhones don't fall in the computer category. But I agree with Henriok, it's one and the same, maybe missing a few features found in Mac OS X, and with a different GUI, but still the same OS. Sfacets 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer the longer discussion here: Talk:OS_X. Thanks. — Epastore 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Rumor Mill

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)

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)

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)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6244705.stm Lewismistreated 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless?

What on earth does this mean (under the 'specifications')? iPod portion features Cover Flow interface and 3-D effects Please delineate it there properly! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.137.58 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Beyond 3G? Phone is not even 3G!

The iPhone is simply a 2G (or 2.5G due to EDGE) phone with Wi-fi (802.11b/g[[6]]). Why say it's "Beyond 3G"? The definition given for "Beyond 3G" in the article is for data rates of 100Mbps or more. 802.11g goes up to 54mbps only. Marcosleal 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but Jobs mentions in the keynote that they "plan to make 3G phones and all sorts of amazing things in the future" (50min20sec on the Keynote stream). Also, if the WiFi is Pre-N, then that could possibly reach 100mbps speeds. I've heard some stuff about a Data standard that Cingular is rolling out that's supposedto be way faster than EDGE too, but I don't know much about that. 24.184.116.156 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be HSDPA, most likely. However, until such features are added to the iPhone, it's still only a 2.5G phone. -- Kesh 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Slow down!

Folks, remember: The World Will Not End Tomorrow. We're not here to score points, or scoop each other. Slow down, take your time and fact-check before making an edit. I'm as excited about this as anyone else, but we want to make sure we're putting out a good article, instead of a lot of random edits. -- Kesh 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fluctuation

Hey, I'm trying to read this article and it keeps changing every second! 205.174.22.25 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit crazy. See my post above yours. Folks need to slow down and just let the facts settle rather than posting changes willy-nilly. -- Kesh 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be same to say that those changes make a good news article but a bad encyclopedia entry? :) Sfacets 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Safari Picture

The picture with the iphone using safari is squashed. If someone could fix the picture/ un-squash it that would be helpful, as I do not know how to do it. -User:Musicaldemon on January 9th, 2007 at 9:50 P.M.

Lead-in

The whole lead-in paragraph needs rewritten. It's crammed with way too many buzzwords, information that belongs in the Specifications section and just generally is difficult to read. Also, the article needs to stick to announced features and capabilities, not speculation. I admire Wikipedians' fervor to add information, but the article is a bit of a mess right now. -- Kesh 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can worry about that for the moment until details/specifics settle down. I mean, for an intro to the complete 7 hour history of the official iphone, there really is no need to jump on the change.WasAPasserBy 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrase "Apple has filed for 200 patents..." should read "Apple claims to have filed for..." or "Apple CEO Steve Jobs has said that apple filed for..." as the cited source article only quotes Jobs himself from the keynote, not any source that verified the actual number of patents. This seems like it is too round a number to be perfectly accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onshisan (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Availability in Canada

The article writes that it will be available in Canada in June. I am pretty sure there was no mention of this in the keynote, or did I miss something? 70.80.66.195 04:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Rogers will be releasing it in Q4 2007/Q1 2008. http://www.johnwiseman.ca/blogging/technology/apples-new-iphone-availability-in-canada/ 142.150.8.249 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lock This Page

Already had to cut out "Mike Jones", more vandalism expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinCLovesU (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. This page should be locked to prevent vandalism. Weters 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Two Batteries?

i read somewhere (i think) that the iphone would include two batteries. one for the mp3 and one for the phone. im not sure if this is correct and how they would manage to fit it into the phone. could someone please confirm or deny this please?

This was from a early rumor site, not from fact. I'd have to watch it again, but I think that Kevin from Digg said it, I'd have to rewatch, but regardless, its not mentioned under tech specs http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/specs.html, so it shouldn't be mentioned.

Does anyone have any info on what the battery specs are beyond the capacity? Are they the same kind used in iPods?, are they replaceable..? Sfacets 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Two batteries would not be needed to prevent music and video-playback from draining the phone. It would be much easier to just disable these functions in software once the battery reach a certain charge-level, like 10 percent or whatever.

Well there are usually two batteries in electronic devices - which maintain the time for example, so that the machine can tell which time it is when it is switched back on. I don't think this is what the user means though, I think he is refering to a Diggnation episode where the host makes a comment on the possibilities of their being two batteries in the upcoming iPhone. Seems dodgy to me that the batteries won't be replaceable (at least not with major surgery) Apple batteries have had a track record of either failing after a while and even exploding. Sfacets 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They are built into the phone just like in the iPod. You have to recharge it and I guess when the battery goes, you ship it off to get it replaced like with the iPod.

Good job editors

Good job editors! I'll look on the Apple site for the pic that is 'squashed' here and see if I can do something. I think I'm gonna have to break my Sprint contract for this baby! Hoooo-Yeah! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just uploaded a new pic of the iPhone with Safari, and chose the 'Macintosh Software' licensing, but that part didn't show up. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They are built into the phone just like in the iPod. You have to recharge it and I guess when the battery goes, you ship it off to get it replaced like with the iPod.

fair use replacements

I've noticed the disputes that had flared up over the fair use of the promotional images, and I think this would be the best place to discuss the issue more broadly. There are already some images on Flickr posted with free licenses[7] (some legitimately, others not), so I guess the question is, "Do any of them 'adequately give the same information' according to the fair use criteria?" Dancter 08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone disambiguation proposal

iPhone should be a redirect to iPhone (disambiguation) page or Linksys iPhone. I fail to see why wikipedia should endorse trademark violations by linking iPhone to a product that infringes on Cisco's trademark at the time of Steve Job's announcement. Kommodorekerz 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple has been in talks with Cisco about the trademark for a while now, and both companies expect a deal to be reached very soon 71.251.184.16 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it was an infringement at the time. Kommodorekerz 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter, WP:NAME is clear on this. As most people who will go to iPhone will be looking for information on the Apple cellphone, Wikipedia shouldn't care if it infringes on the Cisco trademark or not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not THAT soon... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIN3LO0.html Cisco is suing Apple.

WP:NC(P) is even clearer on this: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase". This article should be titled iPhone (Apple) or Apple iPhone; for now, iPhone should be a disambiguation page. And if the courts find in Cicso's favour (and I don't see why they shouldn't, seeing as how Apple don't have a legal leg to stand on), "iPhone" should go to iPhone (Linksys). Martin 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I agree with Martin. iPhone is a legal trademark of Cisco whether Apple buy the rights to it or not. When I typed iPhone (as a test), I was expecting a disambiguation page or straight to Cisco (or even a page about the use of the word "iPhone"). Not my decision, but I think going directly to Apple iPhone is the wrong choice - it screams of POV. 194.203.201.92 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, iPhone should result in a disambiguation page only and be locked 83.67.57.244 11:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC(P) is a guideline, WP:NAME is official policy. Therefor NAME rules over NC(P). Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco is the rightful holder of the trademarked name "iPhone"; therefore iPhone on Wikipedia should link either to the Cisco product or to a disambiguation page. --PhoenixVTam 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

SUPER UMTS / 3G

According to Apple Italy, the iphone will be released with 3G & Super UMTS when released in Europe. Dont know if anybody else can confirm this but personaly I think the iphone is already out of date with its current features, most phone in Europe recently released have Super UMTS, wifi ect. Check out the HTC TyTN which is already 6 months old and has all the iphones features and alot more (apart from 8GB memory).

I agree. Without 3G and a decent battery lifetime the iphone will fade into obscurity before even being released everywhere. I'm not sure people will care so much about a dozen of cool add-on features as long as their new 400-600$ mobile phone is below average. --- Alan F.

Widgets definition

In the keynote, Jobs showed only two applications he called widgets: Weather and Stocks. The other applications being referred to in this article as "widgets" seem more like full fledged "applications" on the phone. Are we using the correct terminology here to call all of "SMS, Calendar, Photos, Camera, Calculator, Stocks, Maps, Weather, Notes, and Clock." as Widgets? Mike Koss 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and changed the text accordingly. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Specifications"

I'm not sure how to write for this section without being redundant with either the infobox or with the Features section. What's in there now seems like an arbitrary restatement of features in odd priority and capitalization. RVJ 11:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Third-party Dashboard Widgets

Under "Third-Party Development", The article reads:

Apple has announced that the iPhone will allow the execution of Dashboard widgets.

Apple has said that the iPhone runs "widgets," certainly, but does it run the same widgets as MacOS X Dashboard, and can third-party developers actually load them onto phone without Apple's permission?

Is there any source for the statement in the article? Can we confirm this? (I can find speculation here[8], but that's about it.)

If there's no source for this statement, I'm going to remove it, or edit it to say the official status is uncertain. emk (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

its a bit of a tough one. Since widgets are HTML/CSS/Javascript, they may do the same thing as with Tiger to let you load them. However, Cocoa Dashboard widgets is where it gets funny because while Steve Jobs officially said the iphone uses Cocoa at the keynote, he never said if dashboard will. But I agree with EMK I guess, I assumed, possibly wrongly before that third party would be supported. I believe we should mention Widgets under the development section though still, because it is very likely they will be also third party. But maybe keep it how it was changed now. Auzy 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really hoping that the iPhone supports third-party widgets, or even better, that it can sync widgets with Leopard (and thus work with Dashcode, etc). I'm not at all optimistic about Cocoa widgets, because that would essentially open the phone up to full programmability. But so far, no official word on third-party widgets, Cocoa or otherwise. Maybe it's worth bugging Apple Developer Services, to see if we can get a straight answer? emk (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since they are so fond of saying that the iPhone runs Safari, since they are calling the iPhone widgets "widgets" & since my understanding is that Dashboard widgets can run in Safari; I'm hopeful that--even though there may be some differences between iPhone widgets & Dashboard widgets--that they are essentially the same thing. In fact, it's an easy way to allow 3rd-party development while keeping it sandboxed. But, yeah, it's all speculation right now. If the iPhone really does have the full Safari, though, there are plenty of "applications" that won't need to be loaded directly onto the device. --Malirath 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

speakers

somebody should post about where the speakers are Bobguy89 13:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well logic dictates that at least the opening for the speaker for handset operation is located above the LCD (in portrait mode). I doubt that a different speaker is used for handsfree and Video/Audio playback. Remember that the iPhone has a sensor (the proximity sensor) to detect that the user is using the device as a phone, so the volume can be automatically adjusted for both modes. But in fact there is no real information about the speaker released, (as far as I know) so this is still speculative. I wrote a bit about this in the article, but it was removed and replaced by the single sentence "The loudspeaker is used both for handsfree operations and media playback." and in truth this is all that is really known at this time. Mahjongg 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vibrate?

Will this phone have a vibrate feature? gujamin 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's assumed in cell phones these days unless specifically stated otherwise. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would... it would cause havoc to the sensors otherwise... Sfacets 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

In Jobs' speech he specifically said there was a button to set the phone on vibrate. So.... I'm guessing there's a vibrate feature. 66.68.5.236 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

why put microsoft iphone

i was shocked to see someone had vandalised the page to say microsoft iphonel; perhaps we should lock this page to apple fans only so that microsoft lovers can stick with their s*it products? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.37.37 (talk • contribs)

Not very constructive. An considering how many people actually watch this page, vandalism isn't actually a problem. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat important to understand the reasonings for putting 'Microsoft' before iPhone. Is it not true that Microsoft owns Apple? That's what my brother told me and so he says it doesn't really matter if someone buys a Dell or an Apple. So we might as well just call it Microsoft's iPhone. Let me know what you guys/gals think. I'm not about to make an edits, but just a suggestion. Cynthia18 10:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see where the confusion is coming from — I was trying to figure out what you meant down in your comments below. No, Microsoft does not own Apple. Microsoft owns a (very) minority stake in Apple's stock, but it does not have any say whatsoever in the design or marketing of Apple's products. It has nothing to do with the iPhone. —bbatsell ¿? 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks bbatsell for your clarification on this. I guess I am glad I bought an Apple after all. So who owns Apple? We shouldn't mention at all that there is a slight possibility that somebody from Microsoft helped out with this great project? It just seems pretty unbelievable that Apple could manufacture such a tiny computer on their own. And with Apple's new BootCamp software, it seems highly likely that Microsoft is taking a bigger chunk of not only the market share but also the thoughts behind such a unique design. On second thought, maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for this. But I think it's interesting to at least think about. Thanks again for your help! Cynthia18 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No one owns Apple. Apple Inc. is its own entity. Will2dye4 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Williy2dye4, thanks for the great info regarding the ownership of Apple, Inc. being it's own separate entitiy. I guess this clears everything up regarding company name and trademarks but in truth, there remains one question: who exactly do you write the check out to when purchasing an Apple product at the Apple Store? Just 'Apple, Inc.' or 'Apple Computers' or 'Steve Jobs' or I think we should still consider the fact that perhaps a check could clear the Apple financial department written to 'Microsoft' or 'Bill Gates' because as mentioned above, the ARE a part owner...thoughts? Cynthia18 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please keep discussions related to the article. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

cynthia, you are clearly someone who not only doesn't belong on wikipedia but doesn't belong anywhere in the world. please keep all your talk to a minimum like zimzalabim noted above or even better, leave this page altogether. thanks for your cooperation. please note that i do possess admin. 210.92.207.2 10:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to delete that comment from the user above? I'm very hurt by what he/she had to say and it definitely doesn't involve anything with the iPhone. He/she has also vandalized my user page as well as talk page with some equally awful comments. I'm just trying to figure everything out here and the iPhone made me very excited to be part of Wikipedia. After initial disappointment, I felt better about the community taking me in but this is too far. i feel violated and disrespected. I'm sorry for all my comments here and to you ZimZalaBim if you feel the same way about me. I won't be posting anymore here or anywhere else for that matter and I hope this article about the iPhone really takes off with ALL of your dedicated help and devotion. I just want to die I feel so humiliated. Cynthia18 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

announced vs future product tag

This is an officially announced product, whose specs and details have been published by the manufacturer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So? You created {{announced product}} as being distinct from {{future product}} basically so you could put it on this page, right? Please, get your head around the fact that there's no fundamental difference between the two, and your template-baby does nothing to improve the informative accuracy of the article. Actually, it takes away from it. This article *does* contain speculative and preliminary information. You cannot possibly prove that the specifications and release dates announced by Apple in January are still going to apply in June. You can't! It's not possible! Never mind the fact that Apple is known for changing such things on a whim, what if something else comes up? The wording of {{future product}} is deliberate in covering the encyclopedic circumstances of the information that follows, and -- as has been the case on Wikipedia for the last year and a half -- is quite sufficient in denoting future products. -/- Warren 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, the two templates are distinct. It this template starts on this article, then it can spread to other articles as well which have been wrongly categorized. Sfacets 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

{{announced product}} reads to me like it describes a product that has been both announced and released. It doesn't make the distinction that's significant here, which is that the product has not been released yet. It also doesn't indicate another important and related distinction, which is that information here is preliminary.

The second sentence, "It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only." is confusing to me - it seems to read that (1) there is a possibility that the article contains information released by the manufacturer and (2) there is a possibility that the article contains information by other reliable sources. This sounds like a non-disclaimer — that is what is expected of all articles. The inclusion of "only" seems to suggest that there could be other sources of information, beyond the manufacturer and reliable sources, meaning we might use non-reliable sources? I just don't understand this template. What's wrong with {{future product}}? It's "future" as in its forthcoming; the fact that it's officially announced doesn't change that. In fact, and as past AfDs and DRVs have shown, if it were not officially announced, there wouldn't even be an article about it. schi ^talk 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The information here isn't preliminary, which makes all the difference. Sfacets 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And how you know that? I kind of remember many, many products that were changed before launch. Until then, all information is preliminary for us. -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Inserting the {{future product}} tag makes original research assumptions that the prosuct "might" change sometime in the future, whereas the {{announced product}} makes no assumptions, and bases everything on facts (sources) Sfacets 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the announced product tag reads It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only. so it indicates it may also contain original research. Both templates say the same, but one points the article may have original research, while the other points the article may have reliable sources. -- ReyBrujo 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, it's really an "original research assumption" to assume that the product information might change by the time of release? It seems to me that it's just as much an "original research assumption" that the product won't change upon release. schi ^talk 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it, the template doesn't make that assumption, or any assumption. Sfacets 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case (which I don't believe is the case), then why would you insert the {{announced product}} tag at all? schi ^talk 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The information in this article *is* preliminary. Several times through Apple's history, and even more often in the world outside Apple, the specs of a product have changed (sometimes drastically) between announcement and release, and the FCC may require changes to the iPhone before it hits stores. The {{future product}} template says that the article may contain preliminary or speculative information which may not reflect the final version of the product; this applies in this case. I just don't understand the point of the {{announced product}} template: when it says the article "may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only", is it warning the user that the article might not contain information about popular reaction to the product or references to it in media, or is it telling an editor that such information is prohibited? (There's no Wikipedia prohibition against information such as that.) I just don't understand whether the {{announced product}} template is warning what kind of information the article might contain or declaring what kind of information the article can contain. - Brian Kendig 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the template {{announced product}} doesn't make any assumptions on wether the product is preliminary or not, but rather focuses on what data is given by official sources. Sfacets 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. If {{announced product}} doesn't care whether the product is preliminary, are you saying it should go on all product pages whether the product is preliminary or released? And why the concern over "what data is given by official sources", given that verifiability is already a keystone of Wikipedia, and there may be useful information about products outside of what's given by "official sources"? You'll never see any negative qualities of a product mentioned by its official sources, for example. - Brian Kendig 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Someone had to say it: BECAUSE THE WORD OF JOBS IS ABSOLUTE AND PURE AND UNCORRUPTABLE! ALL HAIL JOBS!

C'mon, people. This is a future release, subject to change. From what I've seen, the trademark on iPhone hasn't even been officially settled (or wasn't, during the above BS). Standards on the device could change, price points could change, lawsuits could force features out. Just because Jobs said it doesn't make it 100% uncorruptable fact. 209.153.128.248 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go to every one of the pages here (Windows Vista, for example, whose specs have also been released by the manufacturer) and add the "announced product" to all the products which have been announced, lest you appear NPOV. cacophony ◄► 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Widescreen" video

Is 4:6 widescreen? I thought that term was reserved for 16:9 (or maybe 16:10?). cacophony ◄► 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not true wide screen as evident in the presentation the other day. --70.48.68.147 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While "widescreen" might be specific technical jargon in some contexts, I wouldn't expect such a meaning to extend to all usage of the word. Especially usage in a company's marketing. I think it's safe to assume here it means nothing more than "wider than previous iPod screens". --Malirath 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The screen ratio is 3:2, whereas the "old" video iPod has a ratio of 4:3. By this definition (widescreen being 16:9 or even 16:10 ), it's not true widescreen. Here's a comparison chart: Image:Video_Standards.svg -- Eptin 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So what should be changed? Change it to "semi-widescreen"? "Wider screen"? Or just say "screen", and add a note about it being wider than the ipod screen? cacophony ◄► 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've commented out the image above. Please resize it to a thumbnail here, as not all of us are using a high-resolution screen! -- Kesh 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that's better. Thank you very much! -- Kesh 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

CPU type/speed?

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)

Apple hasn't said anything yet. Sloverlord 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting... http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2379 hmmmm. Sfacets 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

no one knows. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36857. Ruw1090 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Images that meet WPs requirements.

Flickr has this image and this image. I'm not sure about exactly which CC images are OK, but I think thes are OK. The current images are not OK. - Peregrine Fisher 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Noone responded when I commented on the issue earlier. I was even about to delete my comment. CC-BY-SA is definitely OK. To be extremely nitpicky, pretty much all the iPhone images on Flickr marked with free licenses have some possible copyright issues (the Apple logo, copyrighted imagery displayed on-screen, recognizable images of random people displayed in the background), but the photos themselves are freely licensed, and could be in principle be edited to be completely free. Dancter 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we find any better free images? These are fine, for the moment, but no match for the earlier ones in terms of clarity and aesthetics Sfacets 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Just as long as they're free use because, bottom line, free use images should ALWAYS replace fair use images. Roguegeek (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that they are still copyrighted. Apple owns the copyright to the user interface. That image should not have been on the Wikimedia Commons, as the Commons can only host free use images. I nominated it for speedy deletion and it was deleted. If you would like to upload the file on Wikipedia, feel free to do so, but it is FAIR USE, not FREE USE. All images of the iPhone will be fair use, AKA copyrighted, as the user interface is copyrighted. Showing the iPhone with the screen blank would not show the function of the phone, so we will have to use fair use. Scepia 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I commented on that, too. There are still some things I'm unclear about, though. Even it it wasn't suitable for Commons, wasn't the image still preferable as a more free image? Or is principle that copyrighted is copyrighted, and free is free, and it doesn't matter how much? Dancter 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image I uploaded listed for deletion

I resized and re-cropped the image of the iPhone displaying Safari and uploaded it last night. I 'thought' I used the license for 'Macintosh Software' but it didn't seem to note that with the upload. I just got a message that the image is listed for deletion. I don't know much about Wiki copyright and licensing requirements, so perhaps somone who does can do what is needed. - Thanks FAAFA (I want an iPhone NOW) 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

future product template

From David Pogue's hands-on:

"The phone won’t be available until June, so some of its software isn’t finished yet. As I tapped my way into obscure corners of the phone, Mr. Jobs pointed out a couple of spots where only a placeholder graphic was available."

"The refresh rate felt typical of a camera-phone to me, but Mr. Jobs said that it would be much smoother by the time the phone is done."

Link AlistairMcMillan 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the iPhone is out but not available for purchase until June. So would you say that this is a 'future' product because people cannot get one now but some people at Apple have it. Or is it just semantics and technicalities that we like to enforce upon ourselves? Just wondering if a product needs to be available for purchase in order for it not to be a 'future' product. Protector of the Truth 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Any product that is not yet available for purchase is a future product. Until meets a shipping date and is on sale, it counts as a future product. -- Kesh 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

File formats

At the moment the article only mentions that the iPhone can play Mp3's. Conceviably it can play everything (and more?) an iPod video can... of course this is only speculation unless we can find sources... Sfacets 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

APC Magazine Publisher

The criticism section mentioned an article published in APC Magazine, and stated that the magazine was an MSN publication. The magazine is published by Australian Consolidated Press. ACP's parent company PBL co-owns the ninemsn portal, which is why there is a banner for it at the top of the APC Magazine website.

Since the attribution is incorrect, and there was no comment left when the attribution was added (diff), I've removed it.

My guess is that the text was added to discredit the article by association with one of Apple's chief competitors --James 09:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV warning

If we are to describe "criticism" of the iPhone, we ought to describe also the extraordinarily positive response in the press. Section marked as a POV violation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we need something that's fair and balanced. I'd say that many of those criticisms could be very real, however some of them seem to be meant to cause FUD. There's been some phenominal reviews out already, and we need to collect some of the other side of the story - JustinWick 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stating the trademark concerns does not matter is not good. Wiki is a objective source of information

Even this attempt(*) to see things in a more objective perspective are deleted.I am sorry to see that Apple fanboys are taking over Wiki.

(*) The trademark iPhone is currently used for at least two products. Linksys , the trademark holder( a Cisco company) is using it for the iPhone internet VOIP solution appliances.

And Apple for it’s newly announced iPhone Wireless cell phone. ( see further) In jan 2007 Cisco sued Apple for infringement of it’s trademark.

show facts not whishes

Be Objective, do not threathen to block users who are trying to be objective. Fact: the name iPhone belongs to a existing product. Show at least both products before you give more information. This is a Encyclopedia and not a PR forum for Apple fanboys! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.90.13.169 (talk • contribs).

It is noted in the very begin and in the Trademark part. I think it's enough. --Have a nice day. Running 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

I requested a semi-protection for this article, I hope it will protect it from all these vandals. --Have a nice day. Running 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not good!.

This is a Encyclopedia and not a PR instrument for Apple Inc. A reference to iPhone should start with the name of a existing product as is the case since 1997. Linksys is the trademark holder and as such should be named at least first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikisedEN (talk • contribs).

Nor is the article an instrument for Cisco employees to express displeasure. There are established guidelines for naming and disambiguation (let alone talk page civility). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I can say it again. It is noted in the very begin (For the line of Internet appliances, see iPhone (Linksys).) and in the Trademark part. I think it's enough. I hope it's the last time I have to repeat it. --Have a nice day. Running 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[quote]It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people looking for an article on iPhone are looking for the Apple product.[/quote] That's not the question here. People who use a Encyclopedia are looking for information about a certain topic. It's a FACT that when you look for iPhone there are two products with that name. It's essential information about the topic. It the reason why you use a Encyclopedia! If you are asuming they only want part of the truth ( the Apple Inc part that is) your are breaking down the fundamentals of a Encyclopedia. If i wanted types of censorship i can move to China.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikisedEN (talk • contribs).

First of all, it's not censorship, and the insinuation that it is is quite improper and maligns the intent of the folks involved. Second, please review the WP:NAME article to see why the article is structured the way it is now. If the iPhone from Apple and the iPhone from Cisco were of roughly the same stature, then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. But they ain't, not by a loooooooong shot, and I believe that's what the proponents of the current name are saying. For example, take a look at Big Ben. By your logic, it should go to Big Ben (disambiguation). But that's doesn't seem sensible, because folks are many orders of magnitude more likely to be wanting to know about the clock tower at Westminster, not the 1930s tobacco or the canadian WWII writer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is noted in the very begin (For the line of Internet appliances, see iPhone (Linksys).) and in the Trademark part. I think it's enough. I hope it's the last time I have to repeat it. --Have a nice day. Running 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent: PSP points to a disambiguation page, although Sony has trademarked PSP. We have a history of stupid disambiguation pages, like PC. However, in this particular case, I believe this article should be here, as the casual reader is more likely to search for the Apple product than the Linksys one. -- ReyBrujo 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, also note that the PSP disambiguation page has 26 different meanings for PSP, the iPhone disambiguation page would only have two. The currents solution of a link to Cisco's product is enough. Mahjongg 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco employees on this page

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)

Actually, I welcome employees of any company (as well as those unemployed), so long as they abide by the five pillars. As it is 64.102.36.140 (talk · contribs) has edited here from a Cisco IP, and I'm guessing that is the same person as Whointhe (talk · contribs). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cisco employees should read the guideline WP:COI, on conflict of interest. schi ^talk 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I beleive that when Havoc mentioned that "Wikipedia is very much capable of policing itself" he/she was referring to the wiki community, and not to him/herself. There are grounds for being banned from Wikipdia, and being disruptive after being warned for whatever reason is one of them. Sfacets 06:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Flip with iPhone (Linksys)

The trademark for "iPhone" has been registered since 1997, and is currently owned by Cisco. This article should be renamed iPhone (Apple) and the article currently at iPhone (Linksys) needs to be put here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.122.7 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Ahem. When you type Cisco, it will redirect you to Cisco Systems, not to CISCO Security Private Limited, because it's not so important. Wikipedia can consider disambiguation page, but really not direct redirect from iPhone to iPhone (linksys). And to sign, press 10th button from the left. Like that: --Have a nice day. Running 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not allowed to have commercial bias.Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests from the npov page. Obiviously, this violates it as it assumes apple will win the copyright dispute. It also sides with apple's copyright infingement.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

a) It's not a copyright dispute, it's a trademark dispute. If you don't know the difference between the two, then I would really consider refraining from chiming in. Besides, it's really not much of a dispute. Apple knows that Cisco owns the trademark and has been in negotiations with Cisco to use it for years, they just haven't signed the papers yet. b) The naming conventions stipulate that we name articles according to most common usage. I can assure you that 96% of people looking for iPhone are looking for this iteration of "iPhone", so it's gonna stay put. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia "choosing sides" in a corporate legal catfight. —bbatsell ¿? 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I meant trademark. And yes, I know the difference between the two. If wikipedia isn't choosing sides, why doesn't it list the correct product? A product which has already been released and is the true iPhone. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"I can assure you that 96% of people looking for iPhone are looking for this iteration..." I only see assertions here made by fanboys, not backed by any hard data. Also, it is clear that the iPhone trademark belongs to Infogear (later acquired by Cisco) has the full weight of prior date argument.

"It's not a copyright dispute, it's a trademark dispute" --- yes, we know very well. A similar example is Volkswagen AG, titled Volkswagen, not VW in Wikipedia. VW is redirected to Volkswagen because VW is a trademark of Volkswagen. Remembered Virtual Works and vw.net? We do not redirect VW to Virtual Works. The case is exactly analogous here, with Apple "iPhone"=Virtual Works's VW, Cisco's Infogear/Linksys iPhone=Volkswagen's VW. The result? The court rejected of Virtual Works' claims. Kommodorekerz 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know how I can say this any more clearly: Wikipedia's naming conventions could not care less about who owns what trademark in what country. Wikipedia's naming conventions care about what is the most common usage of a word in order to reduce the amount of time our readers (who come from ALL countries, almost all of which Cisco owns no trademark on "iPhone" in) spend searching for a particular article. People looking for "iPhone" are overwhelmingly looking for this meaning of iPhone, so we take them here. It's that simple. Trademarks have NOTHING to do with it. Take a gander at our naming conventions if you think I'm a "fanboy" (with nothing to back that attack up, by the way). —bbatsell ¿? 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to address your straw man: VW redirects to Volkswagen because it is overwhelmingly what people asking for "VW" are looking for. Decisions made by US courts have absolutely no bearing on the redirect. If, hypothetically, relatively equal numbers of people were looking for Virtual Works or Volkswagen, then we would have a disambiguation page at VW directing them to each article. It would be one extra click, but since we would not be able to predict which article the reader was probably looking for, then we wouldn't arbitrarily pick one to redirect them to. Once again, trademarks would have had nothing to do with that decision. —bbatsell ¿? 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing as if trademark has nothing to do with what people search for. That is obviously incorrect. VW redirects to Volkswagen because VW is a registered(!) trademark of Volkswagen and (only!) Volkswagen can use the name/abbreviation VW in a product/company that in anyway might overlap with what Volkswagen sells at the time of registration, i.e. aspects of automobiles, be it actually an automobile, an engine, ABS, or even car rental, by trademark laws (which are valid outside US too! And the ruling in US also has influences on many other countries). Otherwise, people would not be looking for VW at all, they would be looking at Volkswagen instead. The trademark is part of the decision why people would probably looking for Volkswagen when they type VW. Kommodorekerz 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All reputable sources out there, call this device the iPhone. Let's leave it at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which sources would that be? I've seen numerous sources referencing the linksys iphone. As well the trademark quite clearly belongs to Cisco and until a deal is signed or a court case is settled they don't have a claim to it. And as its already been pointed out, they have it with prior date as well. There is no reason iphone couldn't be a disambiguation page and create the iphone (linksys) and iphone (apple) articles and/or redirects, and in the interest of retaining a neutral point of view that would be appropriate. Otherwise it would seem that wikipedia is is endorsing one of the other.--Crossmr 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As —bbatsell ¿? pointed out, trademark has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia articles take priority when one result is expected to be the most likely result people will be searching for. In this case, the overwhelming number of searches are likely to be for the Apple product. If we were to take your advice, this would have to apply to every duplicated article name, even if there are only two articles in question. -- Kesh 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As always, your source for that, or is it just your assumption?--Crossmr 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it two ways: 1) yes, my assumption. Can you honestly assume more people will be searching for the Cisco product? 2) do a web search. What are the top results? -- Kesh 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reputable sources continuing to use "the iPhone" to refer to the Apple's product on articles published after Cisco's announcement to sue Apple over trademark infringement. Certainly the beeb hadn't use that phrase for the Apple's product in question for articles published in the last two days (as a simple search on BBC news reveals). Kommodorekerz 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Review section

Why is there a review section? Hardly anyone has even physically touched iPhone, let alone reviewed it. This section also contains references to problems with iPhone that amount to pure speculation, yet is presented as "review." Sjenkins7000 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pogue from the NYT, and at least one other reviewer, did get about an hour with the device after launch. But most, I'm sure, are really just speculation and unreliable original research on their own part, and probably should be deleted. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Smartphone?

An editor had removed the Smartphone category from the article, claiming that the iPhone wasn't one. I reverted. However, his argument is that "A smartphone must be able to run native applications that can be loaded or unloaded from the device." Anyone agree? The article smartphone does claim that "A key feature of a smartphone is that additional native applications can be installed on the device" - but I question that (arbitrary?) requirement since no citation is provided. Just thought I'd toss it out to this crowd to see what the opinions are. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

75.209.74.41 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) The Wiki article is very clear. It is one of the main differentiation between SmartPhones and "high end feature phones". Third party applications. It is a deliberate choice on Apple's part for good or bad. But it is a choice for now.

How is the iPhone not a smartphone? It's virtually a portable computer. Additional apps will be able to be installed; what other smartphone manufacturers call applications, Apple calls widgets. Sjenkins7000 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

that's what I'm saying - but he's buggin' on the fact that "native apps can't be added or removed" or whatever. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the "smartphone" tag for the same reason. An Engadget article supports the claim as does an interview which is now confirmed by Eddie Cue (Apple's VP of Applications) and Phil Schiller (Senior VP of Worldwide Marketing) that Apple's "iPhone" won't accept third party applications. I'm not sure about this "virtually a portable computer" claim either. WiZZLa 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, it's now confirmed by Steve Jobs in an interview with the NYTimes and one with MSNBC. Quotables are "“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers." and "You don’t want your phone to be an open platform...Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up." WiZZLa 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that confirm? That Jobs feels people "don't want their phone to be like a PC"? That's fine. But the issue here is whether iPhone is popularly considered to be a kind of "smartphone", and I have yet to see some kind of reliable source defining smart phones as only something that can run third party software. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought my "update" was clearly a reference to my previous comment regarding whether or not Apple's "iPhone" would accept third-party applications. Did you read the articles? Just because something is "popularly considered" to be something, doesn't mean it actually is. Maybe smartphone should be edited as nothing there is shown to have a reliable source either. WiZZLa 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, smartphone should be edited, which I requested of those editors yesterday. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well when smartphone is edited, make sure the information on it isn't what is "popularly considered..." WiZZLa 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Wizzla, a Smartphone - just like a PDA - should have the ability to run third-party applications. This is also the consent of the industry since every other smartphone/PDA out there can run third-party applications. 81.233.73.177/HSB

No third party applications therefore the iPhone is *NOT* a Smartphone. It is a deliberate choice. 75.208.57.121 20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me that consensus. Running third party applications is not a requirement to become a smartphone. If so, please show it to me where it is stated. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and no citations to support such a claim at smartphone. The closest that article gets is saying "A key feature of a smartphone is that additional native applications can be installed on the device. The applications can be developed by the manufacturer of the handheld device, by the operator or by any other third-party software developer." Seems iPhone fits this requirement, since (presumably) the various widgits, GMaps and other apps are applications developed by the manufacturer or third-party that can be added/removed by the phone. Definition doesn't seem to require that the user is able to add/remove applications. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that what is generally understood is that a SmartPhone is a phone that is *open* to third party developers. Like the Mac is, like Linux and Windows are. That means that third party developer can build real applications. All the Smartphones today support in general Java, C and or BREW solutions for third party development. The Apple announcement is very clear in that Apple does *not* want third party developers. In fact for phones in this category this may be the iPhones biggest differentiation. The LG phones already has a large touch screen and a similar user experience and in 6 months many other phones will have been put forward. All of them with the ability to build thrid party applications. So in that respect one can anticipate that the iPhone will be different from that perspective. The only mitigating factor is the widget support. But widgets are hardly applciations. Time will tell. Apple could decide to change that position. But for now developers are not wanted. For the better or the worst. That is very clear. And the understanding of most in the market is that a SmartPhone is mostly a camera phone with the ability to run custom applications developed by an ecosystme of third party developers. 75.209.65.98 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Split iPhone trademark?

As the trademark section grows in length, I'm wondering if we should split it into its own article, say, iPhone trademark dispute. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As it grows, that would be a good idea. Right now, it's no where near the limits for it's own article. Roguegeek (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. As it stands now it is better here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added information about the use of iphone's name in domain names other than iphone.org owned by Apple (the relevant bit, including iphone.net owned by Cisco, was deleted by Apple fanboy User:Kesh the first time round). It looks like iphone.info is up for sale. It would probably grow a lot longer if we include secondary TLDs such as .co.uk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommodorekerz (talk • contribs) 22:29, January 11, 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please do not resort to name-calling. I reverted your edit because of the wording, which was extremely POV slanted towards Cisco. I'm maintaining neutrality on this article, but that applies both ways.

Honestly, I wish people would just stop editing the article as it stands. This has become a frenzy of edits with half-facts, POV-pushing on both sides and generally sloppy editing. This is Wikipedia at its worst, and I'm appalled. We need to slow down and only cite facts about the article subject, not speculation and every little press release about the trademark dispute. -- Kesh 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why when I added quotes from Cisco it is a POV push, but the equally POV quotes from Apple are treated as neutral, as if only Apple's spokeperson calling Cisco "silly" is not POV and is balanced. Also, reporting only on iphone.org owned by Apple since 1999 (December is missed out there) whereas Infogear/Cisco owned iphone.net since January 1998 is deliberately suppressed is not POV? Also mentioning iphone.com, created before the two, which is not a subsidary of Apple was Appled(is it a word now just like slashdotted is?) is not POV. Maybe my wording needs a bit of improvement, but removing the information on domainname registration and Cisco's own stand while promoting Apple's unjustified bashing of Cisco's legal obligation is clearly POV. Kommodorekerz 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. The red text from your post is what I was referring to, aside from the link. The link you referenced I had no problem with, but it was encased in very POV text. Your new version is neutral, which is appreciated.

My choices were to rewrite your wording, which I had difficulty finding a more neutral phrasing for; or simply undoing it for now, and adding the links in later. I chose the latter. I apologize if that offended you, but that seemed the most practical solution at the time. I was undone by the speed with which people are editing this article. I think The World Will Not End Tomorrow is relevant here: people are editing too much, too fast, for no good reason but "scoring points" on the article.

Finally, I don't think the comments from Apple about "silly" lawsuits belong anyway. Heck, the whole trademark dispute would be best without any quotes at all. It just needs the facts. I honestly had hoverlooked the "silly" comment,in the flurry of too-quick edits, so I'll thank you for pointing that out and remove it immediately. -- Kesh 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Update - I edited the section to try and make it more neutral... but the more I read it, the more I think that the two comments from press releases need to be deleted entirely. I've commented that part of the section out for now, until we can reach consensus. I think the commented section just needs to be deleted, as it really just consists of the two companies sniping at each other through press releases, which has no real relevance to the article. -- Kesh 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put back the reference to BBC's report [9] for reference of Cisco's decision to sue. The "silly" quote does appear in the report, but so does Cisco's justification, as one would expect from a beeb's news article. Kommodorekerz 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. Thanks for working together with me on this! -- Kesh 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236 - Perhaps a trademark dispute page is warranted now, this has certainly taken some bizarre twists and turns. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Has Apple got the go-ahead from Federal agency?

As I recall seeing reports from the time of Job's address Apple hadn't (at the time) got permission from the relevant federal agency: "This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission". Has Apple got the green light yet? Kommodorekerz 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It takes a few months to get FCC approval for a new electronic communication device. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Will it also affect worldwide availability? Kommodorekerz 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Different countries/unions have their own regulatory bodies. But this is off-topic for this talk page.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know different countries have their own regulation. I was just wondering whether (speculate for a moment) a failure to get authorizations from FCC would affect Apple's incentive to manufacture this gadget to the point that it will not be available both inside and outside the US. Kommodorekerz 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Failure to get FCC approval is unlikely, and again, this talk page is supposed to be about this article, not speculation about the topic itself. I'm sure there are discussion forums for such speculation. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant, however, that Apple currently does not have FCC approval. That needs to be noted in the article, but we cannot speculate on whether it will be approved or not.--HereToHelp 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is (and has been for a while) mentioned in the lede section. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move(s)

The result was no consensus. It was a doomed train wreck from the start. Please do not add more votes.

The iPhone

I propose moving this and other small case Apple products to articles with "The". frummer 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What benefit would this provide? -- Kesh 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

None as far as I can see. It seems complety pontless because the iphone is not the name of the product ans IIRC the use of the in a title is not suposed to be used unless it is necessary and that is not the case here. This type of moved was tried for ipod once and was rejected soundly. You can check it you want. Don't let the no consensus close fool you that was a clear mistake on the closers part because no one (except the nominator) supported it. It was about 16 or 17 to 0. It will almost certinly be rejected the same way here. Long stoty short it would be a waste of time --65.95.16.65 04:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It's unnecessary, it will just lead to a lot of redirects, and I don't think there's much precedent in other encyclopedias. MFNickster 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Lack of argument supporting this move. --Serge 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, we don't have a page for the iPod or the iMac, and never will. Makes no sense. Scepia 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, invalid request. Policy establishes we should avoid "the", "a" and "and" at the beginning of a page name. Also read this style guide. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reason above. Gives undue weight to the product. Sfacets 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Apple iPhone is a better solution IMO

Oppose Adding "the" in front of the name adds nothing. The controversy still exists. it solves nothing and is a waste of time.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No "The" please. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It goes against the naming conventions, and adds nothing. Guy Harris 09:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated above. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see the point. Square 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Absurd idea (but The Wikipedia does have a nice ring to it!) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Apple iPhone is a clearer description, and good indication of the difference between the Apple one and the Linksys one. --Jackcsk 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple iPhone

This name previously suggested at WP:RM, but without a rationale on the talk page. The current title blatantly takes a side in the trademark dispute between Linksys iPhone and Apple iPhone. iPhone should be a disambiguation page between the two, and possibly (pending later discussion and developments) the home for the content about the trademark dispute. Savidan 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It would be nice to have iPhone trademark as the default page, but the section at the moment is too thin. Did Apple/Cisco/Infogear file requests at other jurisdiction outside those countries named in the section? Kommodorekerz 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Found out Apple has also filed requests in Singapore, New Zealand and the UK. Not sure about other countries. Kommodorekerz 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? If we did that, it would just move the debate to the "iPhone/iphone/Iphone" disambiguation pages. Which one should it redirect to? It wouldn't be worth it to create an actual disambiguation page with two links on it, so it should redirect to one or the other. And we go round and round on that argument again. I think we need to leave it as-is for now.

As to the trademark dispute, that really has no place on a disambiguation page. It should either be a part of both articles, or an article itself. -- Kesh 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, WP is not interested in legal matters unless they have to specificly do with Wikipedia. This is a debate between Apple/Cisco, not with Wikipedia. The Apple iPhone is worlds more notable then Linksys iPhone, and that is all that matters on Wikipedia. Leave trademarks to lawyers. Scepia 05:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia is not beholden to trademark law. The Google Test comparing "iPhone +Apple -Cisco" with "iPhone -Apple +Cisco" shows that the Apple iPhone is at least an order of magnitude more notable, and "primary topic disambiguation" should apply. Nohat 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The iPhone link should be a disambiguation page with entries in the order products were announced/released, for example, 1) a link to the Cisco/Linksys/Infogear iPhone (possibly called iPhone (Linksys)) , 2) info (no link may be needed) on Comwave, Nuvio, Teledex, and other Cisco related/licensed companies offering an iPhone service, 3) a link to Apple's "iPhone" page called Apple iPhone. I didn't know that whatever the "current cool product" is, mattered so much on Wikipedia that it could affect a page, information, and consequently, its "ranking." --- WiZZLa 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - this article serves as a disambiguation page for those interested in the far less known Cisco range of internet related products. It is always about the more popular subject matter getting the article, why should it change now? Sfacets 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This is the article that the vast majority of readers are looking for when they look up "IPhone". AmbientArchitecture 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree Any assumption cannot be verified, which wikipedia needs. All of you are assuming people are looking for apple's product. Yes, apple is popular, yes, the apple iphone is popular. But keep this in mind, the apple iphone is at this point a product annoncement. There is no physical apple iphone. But linksys has a real product, a product which consumers see at retail shops and can buy. Not only that, iphone has been around for a long time. It used to refer to infogear's phones. there have been many iphones released (as early as 1998)and out on the market, NONE of which are apple's. Given that, any assumption that either apple's or cisco's is the iPhone is simply wrong. I absolutely agree with a disambiguation page.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, there's no reason to use an ambiguous name when an unambiguous one would be trivially longer and in line with normal conventions. If it's really that much of a primary topic, we can keep iphone as a redirect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong opposeWikipedia doesn't care about trademark violations, that Cisco owns the trademark for the name is beside the point. We should make it easier on our visitors, and as stated several times on this talk page. Only a fraction of people will be looking for the Linksys iPhone, most people will be looking for Apple's iPhone. Also, the naming has been decided due to WP:NAME. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it any harder to be redirected to Apple iPhone? We do this when the name is ambiguous. Apple Newton, or Apple Lisa, or any other ambiguity in apple products is resolved the same way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree Wikipedia should respect cisco's product and at least have a disambiguation page with details of the two. "Apple iPhone" & "Cisco iPone" Squishedorange 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia should not take a stand due to trademarks, but convenience to visitors and our policy on WP:NAME. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A disambiguation page for the ambiguous term is not 'taking a stand', it's the neutral position. BarryNorton 12:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Look at it practically. Think of how many more people will come here looking for info on Apple's iPhone rather than Cisco's. Havok makes a good point, that according to WP:NAME, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Sjenkins7000 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree. This isn't even affected by the results of any trademark hearing, Apple iPhone is the product and iPhone in isolation is ambiguous. BarryNorton 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree - as I noted above, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is clear on this: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase". Citing WP:NAME fails to account for the simple fact that (for now) there are two separate articles about two communication devices called "iPhone". Changing the name of the article so it reflects that it's about the Apple product will make it more clear for readers, not less. The title of this article should be totally unambiguous; it is not at present. Martin 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:NAME still rules over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). And WP:NAME is clear on this as quoted above. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NAME does not "rule" over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), because the issue regards two devices with the same name, and so we must ensure we precisely name the article to avoid confusion (e.g. see Microsoft, Upgrade, Etc. below). WP:NAME is only relevant if you are suggesting that iPhone (Apple) or Apple iPhone are misleading or confusing titles that the average person wouldn't be able to understand, which is obviously not the case. iPhone should be a disambiguation page. Putting the manufacturers' names in the respective articles will aid clarity for the reader, and the beloved WP:NAME calls for the article to be "optimised for readers". How is making an article's title more ambiguous and unclear "optimising" it? Anyhow, MacPhone is a much better name.... :) Martin 14:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree - Comment - Martin is right on this one. He is exhibiting great knowledge on this point and I agree with him. It was enough to confuse me and I think there needs to be some way to tell the difference Cynthia18 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Apple does not refer to the product as "Apple iPhone"; just as "iPhone". Macintosh was moved to where it is from Apple Macintosh a few months ago to replace a disambiguation page. I will admit, though, that the other iPhone is more notable then a disambiguation page. If further disambiguation is needed, call it iPhone (Apple) and make this page the disambig.--HereToHelp 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NAME. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Linksys does not call their product the "Linksys iPhone", either. -- Istill316 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. To call the article Apple iPhone makes it easier for the reader and help us separate it from the Linksys iPhone. 81.233.73.177/HSB

Oppose per WP:NAME and product is not called "Apple iPhone". ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons stated above. Everyone who cares identifies "iPhone" with Apple. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Per most of the previous comments. Apple has obviously been better at marketing its phone. Tough luck for Linksys, but Wikipedia is not the place to settle trademark squabbling. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree When a title is ambiguous (as this is), declaring that apple put out more PR is hardly a reason to pretend that the cisco version doesn't exist. The fact is, even beyond people looking for the apple iphone, or the cisco iphone, there are going to be a great number of people who are specifically looking up 'iphone' to see which they get, in light of the lawsuit. Does it really make sense to greet these people with direct proof that an ambiguous, non-neutral title was chosen, specifically to side with one side of the complaint? How in the world can ambiguity be considered better? Neutrality, clarity, and just plain common sense should really prevail here. Bladestorm 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment the only way to remain neutral in this matter is to apply our existing policies (namely "primary topic disambiguation") and base our naming policy for this article on special treatment due to external factors. Nohat 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree For all we know, this device name could be changing. I see Macintosh fans getting "protective". JRT 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not base our naming policies on speculation of future events, but rather on the facts as they exist now. Nohat 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The vast majority of people searching "iphone" will be looking for the apple version, so it should definitely be the primary topic. If apple has to change the name or some other similar development happens, we can deal with it then. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no question if the name iPhone is ambiguous—it is not in dispute that there are at least two products called iPhone. The question is whether "primary topic disambiguation" applies. If it does apply, then having the article about the Apple product on this page is correct thing to do. If it doesn't apply, then having a disambiguation page is correct. The appropriate section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation says "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." I think there substantial quantitative evidence (like Google searches) that iPhone means the Apple product orders of magnitude more often than any other meaning, and therefore primary topic disambiguation should apply. Those who think this page should be moved should be prepared to provide some quantitative evidence that the non-Apple meanings of iPhone are substantial enough to justify equal-treatment disambiguation, and not rely on irrelevant legal arguments or immaterial arguments that the two products have the same name. Nohat 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - But the point here is that both of these two products DO, in fact, have the same name. It is not immaterial but an argument nonetheless. Something to think about... :) Cynthia18 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have the same name, but that is immaterial. We have specific policies for dealing with things that have the same name. The current handling is the correct one. Nohat 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help here Nohat! I still think the best answer to all of this is in the next section. Cynthia18 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree : This is wikipedia. Not a blog. If at all this unreleased product had to be identified with iPhone name, put Apple first. iPhone belongs to Linksys/Cisco and lets keep it that way. Square 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree : Cisco owns the trademark, plain and simple. Apple stole the name, and if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an internet publication, it must acknowledge the rightful owner of the trademark. 64.65.248.221 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. For the same reason there aren't articles for Apple iMac, Apple iPod and Apple MacBook, this article should remain simply iPhone; it's stylistically consistent, for one, and there's even a link to the Linksys product on the page for Apple's product. Will2dye4 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry will, but I'm having a hard time finding information on the Linksys MacBook. Or the Cisco iMac. Where can I find that again? (Incidentally, even though the portable system is, by far, the product most associated with 'PSP', there's still a redirect, to minimize ambiguity. Keep that in mind when you think of "stylistically consistent") Bladestorm 21:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree: Using terms such as 'iPod' is fine, as there is no other product of the same name, and hence not a chance of confusion. The point on 'PSP' is a very good one and should be applied in this case. Istill316 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: PlayStation Portable and Paint Shop Pro are both pretty common. The Linksys iPhone is non-notable, only having an article because of the Apple product. People interested in the Linksys product should click on the link at top - it's right there. At the very top. Scepia 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize that the other products under the name have been pretty conclusively decided to satisfy our notability guidelines, and it's rather dishonest to disregard the dozens of editors who disagree with you on that? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended the Linksys lovers (sarcasm). The Linksys product would not have it's own page (and for that matter, would not exist IMO) if Apple wasn't going into the cell phone business. Don't be ignorant because you can. Scepia 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - This isn't going to help any, as that's not the product name, so it does nothing to help disambiguate the article. If anything "iPhone (Apple)" makes more sense as it keeps the product name intact, while delineating which version of the product the article is about. -- Kesh 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree - A disambiguation page has been created at iPhone (disambiguation). If Wikipedia is neutral, it cannot take sides by assigning Apple the iPhone name, nor give Apple unfair advertising.

- The iPhone page perhaps should focus on the lawsuit, giving equal time to both parties and linking appropriately to the Linksys iPhone and Apple iPhone pages.

- To argue that other Apple products are linked without the 'Apple' prefix, such as the iPod, is to ignore the fact that there are no products competing for the same name in those cases, unlike this case.

- That "Apple iPhone" is not the product name is irrelevant; likewise, "Linksys iPhone" is not that product's name.

Agree. That's a respect of Linksys' official ownership of the trademark "iPhone". Wikipedia is not here to judge which topic gets more searches. --Jackcsk 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Then why does Big Ben go to the clock page, and not to a disambiguation page? Because that's what most people will be searching for. -- Kesh 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

- The above referenced example of PSP should be taken into consideration.The primary topics on that disambiguation page are the Playstation PSP and Paint Shop Pro PSP, the latter much older than the former but much less commonly accessed, as may be inferred from the number of Google and Yahoo search results for "PSP Playstation", "PSP Paint", or "PSP Pro". The difference between those search results is much greater than that between "iPhone Apple" and "iPhone Linksys" or "iPhone Cisco", and yet it has a disambiguation page. This issue should follow suit. -- Istill316 21:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you do a fair Google search, of PlayStation Portable and Paint Shop Pro, the former get 2.1 million, and the latter 1.6 million. Pretty close. Scepia 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, as per WP:NAME; as an aside, I hardly little to no chance of the final decision here affecting Cisco's litigation. As for 'free advertising' for Apple, opposing the name change if anything springs from the opposite impulse; Apple's promotional machine has already created huge mindshare for the iPhone, and keeping the name simply concedes that point. —GGreeneVa 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - As clumsy as it may be, placing the Apple product here is certainly jumping the gun, just like Apple have done. iPhone should just be a 2 link disambig until this is sorted out. I know 2 link disambigs are bad for navigation (everybody needs an extra page load), but that's the most sensible option right now. - hahnchen 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Until the issue between Cisco and Apple is resolved, there should be disambiguation page with both phones listed.Zeus1234 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case it would make more sense for it to be at iPhone (Apple) because it makes it clear that is a a disambiguation. It is also how dabs are suspose to be done. It also not imply that Appple is part of the offical product name, as the this name would do. There is a discussion for that name lower down if you want to change your mind. --70.48.175.143 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone - One Name, Two Products

Perhaps we should merge the two product articles together into one article that details both products equally and without bias. This removes most confusion and ambiguity, and follows all the WP rules I'm aware of that pertain to this issue. Plus, this will be a great way to show just HOW the products are different regardless of any trademark and copyright issues. We could even include two seperate lists of product specifications and features that will most likely show both similarities and differences. Cynthia18 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense, it'd be like merging all the Big Ben articles together. In that case, should we have an article that compares how the watch tower clock at Westminster is different from a 1930s tobacco and how those two are different from a canadian writer about WWII? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But in this case, there aren't several very different products or 'things' being talked about. I wasn't aware that people often thinking about that big clock tower in Westminster get things confused with a WWII author or tobacco line. In this case, there is (and has been especially for me) much confusion regarding these very similar products. I just think it would be helpful to show HOW these products are different whereas everyone could tell the difference between a can of snuff and a gigantic tower or a writer. Cynthia18 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - I, for one, think that these articles should be merged into one that details both products, as both are 'iPhones'. Cynthia18 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose as this will create more confusion and argument than before. Which one gets to be the top portion and which gets punted to the bottom? Gonna mix the two together? That's asking for confused readers. And if one of the products does get renamed, we have to split the articles again. No, they need to be seperate articles as they are seperate products. -- Kesh 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. With the recent events, both brands of iPhone have become quite notable. There is a message at the top of both pages that links to the other one. Scepia 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - On the basis that cynthia is not altogether sane enough to make any judgments or statements regarding anything related to apple or otherwise. 210.92.207.2 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose — that's simply not how things are done around here. You're argument that they are "both iPhones" is almost making the assumption that an "iPhone" is just a type of phone, and that these manufacturers have both made one... they're not ! The two products may share the name iPhones but they are very distinct and separate products, made by different manufacturers with different functionality. The only thing you could make an argument for is replacing iPhone with a disambiguation page linking to Apple iPhone and Linksys iPhone but I'd oppose that too, since I'm sure Apple's iPhone will swiftly become the better known, and a disambiguation page for two pages feels unnecessary. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone (Apple)

Martin made a good comment above: part of the purpose of WP:NAME is to clearly state what the subject of the article is. I have to agree with some here that the current name does not clearly indicate that there may be more than one product with this name. In some cases, such a change would not make sense (Big Ben versus Big Ben (England), for example). However, I believe this would help make the page's subject more clear, in addition to matching the format of iPhone (Linksys), which would better suit WP:NPOV. -- Kesh 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page is actually Linksys iPhone. Most users are looking for the Apple product, and there is a nice disambig notice at the top of the page. Scepia 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it used to be iPhone (Linksys). I hadn't noticed it had the name change. Personally, I think both should be renamed appropriately. -- Kesh 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with all these support and opose votes. In Wikipedia we discuss subjects in an attempt to reach Wikipedia:Consensus. See also meta:Voting is evil≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? In this case, the discussion is so fast and furious I think it might help clarify people's positions. Generally I agree, voting on a talk page is silly. And it won't help here as a vote, but it can help clarify what the majority of people think.

I'm starting to get tired of this whole article, though. It's a mess of back-and-forth argument, rather than people trying to write an article. -- Kesh 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that even Apple will now have to defend what they're calling it from Linksys...--HereToHelp 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy between LG KE850 (a.k.a. LG Prada Phone) and Apple iPhone

• LG Electronics
  • LG KE850
• Prada

external link

Apple iPhone Fansite Unofficial Fan Site that has potential. Impostal22 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)impostal22

3 problems: "unofficial", "fan site", and "potential". If it gets some nice info, we can add it, but doesn't amount to much at this point. Scepia 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft, Upgrade, Etc.

I've heard many rumors (including some from my brother who actually works at the Cingular store) about Microsoft's involvement with the design and development with this iPhone (unlike Linksys's version). Should we mention this somewhere in the article? I think it's quite important. Also, what are the real upgrade differences between this model and the one put out in 1996 by Linksys? I think if functions and specs have changed, we should be mentioning them in the article, or at least in the talk section? Maybe we should include a hyperlink to Cingular's mailing address in case people without computer or telephone access have problems changing their service from the Linksys version to the Apple one. These are just some ideas. I'd really like to help get this article off the ground, especially regarding the differences between the two models. Also, with this newer version, will the Linksys model still be produced? Are those going to still be available at the Apple Store? Let's work on these issues and I'm sure this article will come together nicely. Cynthia18 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, just no. Every single thing in this comment is inaccurate and misleading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes, YHBT YHL HAND. The same applies to User:Cynthia18's other comment on this page about Microsoft and the iPhone. Guy Harris 10:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to head things off without coming off too WP:BITEing even in the face of such a blatantly trolling user. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm still confused. I read the article about all those acronyms and everything and the whole WP:BITEing thing but I don't get what it is you guys are talking about. I'm not trolling, as far as I can tell. These are just some honest points of contention I wanted to bring up and now I feel like an idiot. My friend does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and said the community was really great and a nice place to learn and get to know people. I guess I don't see what she was talking about. I really wanted to help with this article because computers are really neat and I think having a phone-computer is a really good idea. I even have a friend with the older iPhone model and thought I could use some personal experience to build the best page we could. I'm still new and learning the ropes, or at least I was. I'm sorry for whatever I did. Cynthia18 10:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia, the Apple iPhone and the Linksys iPhone (which is still being produced as far as I know) are two totally separate products. Cisco are suing Apple for using the name "iPhone" without permission, so it is possible that the Apple product will not even be called the iPhone by the time it is launched. See here. Martin 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for your help on this as well. I was a bit turned off by the initial reaction to what I had posted and I'm glad you could clear this up. I am happy to see someone is willing to help me out. My only point of confusion is about the upgrade process. I understand the products are different but will Linksys users be given the option to buy this phone/computer at a discounted price due to their ownership of a previous version (albeit from a different company)? It seems likely that this will be the case, but I haven't heard how the current lawsuit by Cisco will affect consumer response. When the phone is actually launched, is there a pre-order phase for previous owners, as mentioned before? I'm not really sure that Wikipedia is the place to discuss all of this, but as I mentioned earlier on this talk page, it is interesting to think about. As an Apple owner and Linksys user (not the iPhone per se) I am excited to see where this all goes and how this miniature computer will pan out on the domestic and international markets. I just can't believe that a laptop could be so small and functional with such great phone features. Again, thanks and we'll have to see what happens! Cynthia18 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia, I note that some of the questions you ask would be very handy ones for a CISCO attorney to use in a trial or filings to assert that Apple had created brand confusion. Just an interesting aside. In response to your questions, though, there is no relationship between Apple and Cisco, so it's very unlikely that owning an "iPhone" named product that isn't the specific Apple product being discussed would entitle a user to any type of preferential pricing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cynthia, as has been pointed out, the Apple iPhone is in no way related to the Linksys iPhone; they both (for now) have the same name, that is the only connection between the two products. If you're interested in discussing Apple products, they have forums at MacRumors and AppleInsider where you can speculate to your heart's content. Martin 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on this and the interesting aside. I finally now understand that there is NO RELATION between the Linksys iPhone and the newer version, the Apple iPhone other than the name itself and possibly a few unintentional (or perhaps intentional) features. This is irregardless of what my brother says, although he is often right in these types of situations, i.e. tech questions, computers, modems, cords, power strips, etc. I guess I see why it would be foolish for current iPhone owners to receive any type of preferential pricing for a newer iPhone, regardless of carrier selection, contract length, or even personal preferences. Thanks for your help and also to Martin for yours. I will be furthering my research at the noted websites from Martin and will try to contribute usefully on this article and other Apple related articles in the future. Let's try to keep in touch! Take care and again, thanks. This truly has restored my thoughts about Wikipedia. Cynthia18 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(personal attack removed, user warned)

Again, I am crying as I type this. I feel so humiliated and violated by all of this. I cannot believe how this experience has turned out and how awful it has made me feel. I hope that comment gets taken care of like other vandalization on Wikipedia because it is truly hurtful. I don't even know what to say anymore so I'll stop. Cynthia18 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard, some people are just, like, plain mean. This kind of confusion is exactly why product names are trademarked -- it's really confusing if two similar products have, like, the same name but they're not actually related! The Linksys iPhone is the real iPhone because Cisco owns the name; the Apple iPhone is Apple being totally lame and stealing the name because they, like, think they own iEverything. --PhoenixVTam 16:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack and warned the user. That was simply uncalled for. -- Kesh 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

lowercase tag problem

The lowercase tag is not showing for me in Firefox. Anyone having that problem? Solution? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By that do you mean the text that says the page is incorrectly titled? If so, that only shows up now in browsers that do not support Javascript and CSS, as the default behavior of the template is to fix the titling — check out the name of the article at the top left. It's "iPhone", whereas without the template it would be "IPhone". —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Duh - sorry, my mistake. It was odd, however, that it does show up for me when I preview changes, but just not in the final. If you need to revert my tweaking with the order, go ahead. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Multitouch & interaction

One of the major selling points of the iPhone is the novel interaction, as it was the case with the iPod. I feel that it has to have a promintent section describing it, and that it has to be mentioned in the leading paragraph. Diego 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we don't know much about it, yet. The special features, the limits, etc. All we know is it exists, and we saw some brief demonstrations at the keynote. The whole article suffers from this, but that feature is no better than the rest.

Also, I disagree that it has to be mentioned in the leading paragraph. The lead-in should be as short as possible. -- Kesh 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We also don't know which version of the OS X it is running, and that one got mentioned. The multitouch is much more important for most (all?) users than the operative system. Also, ZUIs and touchscreens are quite well known in research - so many of the features can be inferred from them. I'll summarize "why" it's important and move the details to the body of the article. Diego 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't use such inferences to build Wikipedia content; that would be original research. Until it is directly verifiable, we're not ready to cover it in Wikipedia. Dancter 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It could have a short mention, like a sentence, but I agree that the intro can very easily become very long. Sfacets 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For Jossi and Sfacets: if you review my contribution, you'll see that I didn't remove a single comma - so Jossi's claims that I deleted properly sourced material are wrong. Diego 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the iPhone does not use a true Zooming user interface. It borrows the concept for the browsing and viewing of pictures, but the main phone interface has no zooming metaphor at all. I would also suggest merging this "Zooming paradigm" paragraph in with the Multi-touch section. -- Kesh 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Voice Activation

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)

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)

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)

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)

About the name

An interesting reading. -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

Exhaustive Link of Criticisms, Shortcomings and Future Directions

The Most Exhaustive List of Shortcoming and Future Directions I've been searching everywhere for well thought out critisms of the Apple iPhone that haven't been addressed elsewhere and this is by far the best article I've run across. It not only covers the shortcomings addressed elsewhere, but suggests solutions that Apple can adopt in future revisions to the product. I was actually most impressed by it's explanation of novel ways to utilize existing features that would really would push this device over the top.Wikoogle 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it impressed me: the first point is incorrect and the rest is not much better and highly opinionated. EDGE gives you between 120kps to 220kbs download and about 108 upload. That's real world use - my only internet connection for 5 months on a Nokia 6230i. Then it complains about a battery life of 5 hours. That's talk time and better that most phones. The link is essentially spam and can be ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Some of those ideas are pretty neat. I think some of them like the tv shows on itunes and such, should be inlcuded in the wikipedia entry.Suckered 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blog

Here is a simple view on the Apple iPhone that looks reasonable: The Smartphone and Camera Phone Blog One thing that stands out to many is that Apple needs to get a third party application developer program going asap. Else the iPhone is likely to become irrelevant. 75.208.12.15 13:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be unfair to say that the lack of developer support is a shortcoming. Nobody knows. What is known is that it is a strategic decision. 75.209.23.23 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPhone article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just more linkspam. It's all the rage. Every two bit operator trying to promote their crappy pages. Can we at least delete this stuff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

75.208.145.38 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Actually I don't agree, we should probably keep it. Doesn't look like spam to me. Neither put up by Apple PR or Microsoft PR! There is no advertizing and no promotion and pretty insightful comments on that blog. I just read it. It seems constructive and helpful to the talk about the article. In particular they discuss the accelerometer, the developer program and the impact on the indstry. There is really no downside to have the link there. No commercial content at all, in fact no hyperlinks. Just a flat file.

Why Apple may lose the "iPhone" trademark battle

Apple's defence is that they are the first to use the name in a mobile phone. The lawyer for Cisco will simply point out that Apple has spent the last six years threatening to sue any company anywhere in the world who try to incorporate the term "pod" into their products - even when said products are not portable music players (or in some cases even consumer electronics). (Never mind the fact that before the iPod came along there were already many products - including electronic and music-related - that used the name (as any guitarist, for example, will happily tell you).)

Bully-boy tactics: what goes around, comes around, Jobs. 86.17.247.135 17:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So what can we draw from your rant that is useful to the article? There are many public forums where you can vent your spleen, maybe you could consider one of those next time you feel like expressing your opinion. This page, however, is for discussion about improvement of the article.

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's relevant to the section about the copyright disagreement. What do you think? As Apple have claimed that they have a trump card, and this article has a section on the subject, don't you think there is some relevance there? Or don't you like anything negative (but true) to be added? This is a free product placement promotional feature for Apple, not an encyclopaedic entry. 86.17.247.135 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What you've posted is basically an essay, which has no place in the article. If you find a reputable source that says the same thing, then you could cite them in the article. -- Kesh 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any facts, with suitable references? Only teenagers and people who's emotional development is about as far along care about who wins or loses or what is comeuppance for whatever else. Here we try to deal in facts. You seem entirely bereft of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs).

So Darkov, I am "bereft of facts" am I? So, you dispute that Apple have claimed they have the right to use the iPhone name because it is for a different product from Cisco's do you? Interesting. And you also dispute that Apple have ever tried to sue a company using "pod" in a non-mp3 playing product, yes? Looks like you are the one who has a problem with "facts". Let's see:

"We are the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cell phone, and if Cisco wants to challenge us on it we are very confident we will prevail." -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6250511.stm

"Apple Fights Use of 'Pod' by Others" -

http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple_Fights_Use_of_Pod_by_Others/1155674540

And I just picked out the first of thousands of results from Google searches. Go on, try it yourself - you might learn something. Oh and by the way, I think the above links are called "references". Off you go to amend the section.86.17.247.135 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Jobs was playing a hand when he introduced the iPhone before Apple and Cisco ironed out an agreement. I think he is hoping that in the next six months, people will come to think of it and know it as the iPhone, even if Apple loses the suit and has to rename the iPhone to Apple Phone, or whatever. Six months is a long time in the media with all of the marketing and hype around it. Just get this phone into a tv or movie star or musical artist's hands in a video, tv show, movie or commercial and every influential mind is going to want an 'iPhone' because that is what they will be calling it no matter what Apple has to rename the thing to. It has happened before and most likely will happen again. Cisco will win the lawsuit, but it will have lost the name, in the publics' minds anyway. Protector of the Truth 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so both these things happened, now what is your point? Companies do these things all the time. They don't have feelings - they're companies. Much more interesting is this which has verifiable facts.

Separated at birth: why no mention of the LG KE850 ?

There is not a single mention of the LG KE850 in this article, even though the two could have been separated at birth. There are many product articles on Wikipedia in which a particular item's similarity to an Apple product - particularly the iPod - is noted prominently. Wikipedia should be consistent and note that the iPhone is very similar to another product already launched: the LG KE850. Indeed, if I were LG ,I'd be security-checking my mobile phone design team right now. 86.17.247.135 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your tales of industrial espionage are entertaining, but unfortunately do not constitute a reliable source. Can you give us something more substantive?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkov (talk • contribs)

It's a smartphone with a screen covering the whole face, but otherwise, they're probably very different. (There isn't enough info in the LG KE850 article for me to tell.) The iPhone has a "home" button on the bottom, the KE850 has some sort of bar. At most, it merits a link in the "See also" section. At most.--HereToHelp 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A see also entry may be enough. You can't mention it in the body of the article without a reference. Remember, we don't add original research. -- ReyBrujo 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my post, Darkov, and read my point about similarity and the convention often found in non-Apple product articles. It's in plain language. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia about consumer electronics which mention the alleged similarity between one mp3 player and the iPod, even though the similarity only goes as far as the product is a portable mp3 player, just like the iPod, with a screen and some buttons. No claims or proof of espionage in those cases (and completely fails to recognise that the iPod was not an original product when it first came out either). So why can't this article point out that the iPhone is almost identical to another product that has already been launsched, even though Jobs claimed it was a "reinvention of the mobile phone" and a "magical revolution". Clearly it ain't: LG KE850. 86.17.247.135 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat myself: original research. Unless it is public knowledge, something that is known for most of the world population (the sky is blue, the stars shine at night, the sun is hot, the ice is cold, etc), you can't say "The iPhone is almost identical to the LG KE850." because it is a personal opinion, even if it is true. We are not a publisher of original thought, so we must rely on what others say. -- ReyBrujo 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine; if only the rules were applied consistently across all articles I wouldn't have a problem with it. The page is locked: someone please add the LG KE850 to the "See Also" section (the iPhone is noted on the LG product's page so it's only fair). 86.17.247.135 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the See also section. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple vs. Cisco

Personally, I find Apple and Steve Jobs to be ignorant towards everybody else in the world of technology. Why is it that you can go out and buy a Motorola Q, with essentially the same features, for $299, when the new iPhone is slated to cost $499-$599? Simple - Steve Jobs thinks that just because they've put a lower-case 'i' in front of their product's name, and given it a super glossy plastic case, it must be alot better. I also agree with what many people have said above - that Apple will viciously sue anybody who puts 'pod' in their product's name. This situation is simple, however, because the facts are laid out right in front of everybody: Cisco Systems (who I consider to be the quiet, but well-reputed company) owns the rights to the name "iPhone". Apple used the name without permission. Who is in the right here? Certainly not Apple. One thing Steve Jobs has to realize is that he is not as invincible as he thinks - he's just as disposable as everybody else, and we even saw a glimpse of this in 1985 when Apple literally pushed him aside. I'm not saying that I don't like the iPhone, in fact I greatly admire it. It's Apple's attitude about themselves, other companies, and their products that I don't like. iPods are nothing more than fancy looking hard drives and screens crammed together in a shiny plastic casing. the iPhone is nothing more than a 2.5G version of the Playstation Portable. When it comes to their products, they're over-confident. When it comes to legal worries, it's even simpler: they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Tblore 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)