Talk:iPod Touch/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

ipod touch 3 generation

Will the user 71.153.220.234 please cite a real Reference for ipod 3th generation before adding such information on wikipedia please, as such i cant find any or any information about a possible apple event on the 3th of Feburary, besides as shown in previous generations the ipod touch new versions have been lauched early september and it would be stupid for apple to lauch a new revison only 6 months after lauching the current product. (FastKarts (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

So far there is no evidence from third party sources that an iPod touch 3G will be released. No more speculative information should be added until Apple officially confirms the release. Photographerguy (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been a lot of rumblings about new updates to iPod touch, iPod nano, iPod classic coming in September. Could we address these in a section called "Future Expansion Features"?

Firmware Update 2.0

Why does it say iPod Touch FW 2.0 was released on 7/10/08. It's not live through iTunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.133.100 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/10/iphone-2-0-firmware-5a347-available-early/ Groink (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone only, not iPod touch. --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make this more confusing, my comment when changing said it was compatible with iPod touch. That should have read not compatible. --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is compaible. The update had to be bought though. Through the store, therefore it would npt have appeared on the Summary Tab of iTunes. (74.14.220.119 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC))

New Main Photo

Hey. The other day, I created a new photo using a screenshot of the 2.0 firmware overlaid upon the iPod Touch casing (Essentially what the current photo is). It's under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPod_Touch_2.0.png, so if anyone wants to consider a more up-to-date photo, it is there if needed...Gyrferret (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use some of the photos apple provides? or is it a violation of copyright? they said you can use it as long as you cite them. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ipod touches are useless when you try to update them they crash and then you have to go and restore them and they crash again and it is impossible to load music on easily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.16.17 (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

im guessing that the part about the ipod crashing is vandalism but i will leave that to the higher ups to remove if they want it goneTyb4 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

differences

are there ANY differences between the ipod touch and the iphone (apart from calls and texts)? 81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are any non-hardware differences, neither article (iPod touch or iPhone) would be the articles to discuss it, because it would be the operating system/software that would contain the differences. Check iPhone OS. Groink (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Plain and simple answer: Yes.Gyrferret (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that a GPU (PowerVR, was it?) is listed under the iPhone's specs but not in the iPod Touch specs. Mistake in specs or omission from differences? 92.235.207.214 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the GPUs, but the processor sure is faster. http://www.pcworld.com/article/154518/.html?tk=rss_news Kevin chen2003 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The iPod touch should have the same PowerVR GPU. It probably was a mistake/omission in the specs. 128.36.46.242 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also in the differences section, more specifically, the differences between the first gen and second gen touch, it should be mentioned that the 2nd gen has improved audio quality thanks to a new DAC. This is a pretty important difference because some people didn't buy a 1st gen solely because of the audio quality, which was just average. The 2nd gen, in comparison, has very high audio quality ratings (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/32182/review/ipod_touch.html and http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/32182/tests/ipod_touch.html) thanks to the DAC change, and is supposed to be one of the best sounding players on the market. 128.36.46.242 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Per MOS:TM, we should present the product name as "iPod Touch", not "iPod touch". There is examption for the initial "i" because it is a distinctive mark of the product and there's an exemption for improper caps in the first two letters, but "Shuffle" should be capitalised per standard title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The second line of WP:MOSTM says: "Often, these names are written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation." I'm sorry but aren't Apple always consistent in the way that they capitalize their product names? The third sentence says "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)". Given that Apple never (except maybe accidentally) style their trademark as "iPod Nano", haven't we just invented a new style?

Also, and I admit I don't really have a good grasp of the rules that govern "standard English text formatting" so this may be a very dumb question, but if we are going to ignore Apple's choice for the capitalization of the first letters of the two words, why are we respecting their choice to capitalize the second letter of the first word? Shouldn't this article be titled "Ipod Nano"?

To be clear, I think the recent renaming of the articles was a mistake and just makes us/Wikipedia look more insular and foolish, but I leave it to wiser minds to decide. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion for these moves is at Talk:iPod Touch. You've also cut the quote short: choose the style that most closely resembles standard English. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it looked like that discussion was over. And yes I didn't include that bit above, but when there is only one style then the bit you quoted above doesn't matter does it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a specific exemption in MOS:TM for the first two letters because in standard usage every single source follows Apple's example; there is no such exemption for any other typographical quirk they choose. Every source refers to the iPod as an iPod; there is nowhere near that level of support for using "iPod touch" over "iPod Touch", mainly because it looks evidently broken to those who expect proper nouns to be title case (as in most educated English speakers). The MoS has recently cracked down on this pretty hard, and to good effect - the Apple articles shouldn't buck the trend needlessly.

As for what Apple do: Apple's considerations are strictly secondary to our own. Apple have a brand to protect - we have a legible encyclopedia to write. Apple's typographic convention is worth a mention in the article introductions, but that's all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris already answered for me. The style that mostly resembles standard English is Title Case. –xeno (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to these rules for "standard English"? Perhaps while you are at it you could point the BBC to them as well, because they don't seem to be familiar with them either. Thanks. Also if someone could explain how "iPod Touch" is legible while "iPod touch" is illegible. Thanks again. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article reflect how the company (Apple Inc.) calls the product? Apple Inc. refers to the touchscreen iPod as iPod touch (refer to: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/) not "iPod Touch." Apple has been very picky about this capitalization since the introduction of the fourth generation iPod. Initially, it was called the "iPod Photo" then the "iPod photo" then just "iPod." Since then, any word put next to "iPod" has always been lowercase as in "iPod nano" and "iPod shuffle"

I believe you would have been taught what a "proper noun" is in school. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WSJ. WaPo. The BBC appears to function as an official advertising venue for Apple and Microsoft these days, so no surprise that they use the Apple typography. It's a trademark. We use title case for trademarks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is no wonder Google thinks Knol can go up against Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having an article with over a thousand words devoted to a product isn't promoting that product, as long as we deliberately capitalize a single letter of the product name ever so slightly differently from the seller. Amazing. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with promotion - it's to do with trying to enforce some degree of consistency on Wikipedia's typography. There's consensus that we shouldn't randomly deviate from the conventions of the language unless the issue has become embedded in the popular consciousness (iWhatever), and there's no reason Apple should get a free pass when nobody else does. And really, I'd have expected better from editors in good standing who happened not to win an editing discussion than pronouncements of doom and petty swipes at the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly when exactly did I lose this discussion, I wasn't even involved, wasn't even aware that this original debate was taking place here. Secondly you say that we make an exception for iPod because "Every source refers to the iPod as an iPod" adn the "issue has become embedded in the popular consciousness". Try typing iPod into Google. When I try it I get a result in the first page that says "Ipod". Just look at the talk page for iPod and you'll see many examples of people typing "Ipod" instead of "iPod". It seems entirely arbitrary to allow an exception for the first word but not the second. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it arbitrary? There seems to be plenty of logic behind the rules we have. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"it's to do with trying to enforce some degree of consistency on Wikipedia's typography" Wikipedia's consistency should take a back seat ONLY to accuracy. I see that someone has "corrected" my changes already. We are spreading misinformation. rowley (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud Wikipedia's determination to abide by English usages and best practices. When it does so at the cost of accuracy, however, it goes too far. Wikipedia cannot serve as the reference it is supposed to be if adherence to a "rule" causes it to fail in reflecting the real world usage. People come here to find out what the accepted usages are. Don't spread misinformation. Apple has been very clear in their product naming: "iPod" is first-letter-lowercase, second-letter-uppercase, and the model names that follow are ALWAYS lowercase (except in the original usage of iPod Photo, which was not an "official" model designation). If someone comes here looking to find out the correct usage and we send them away with nothing but what our "guidelines" tell us to do, we are doing them a disservice. rowley (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss guidelines - for this one in particular, go to WT:MOSTM. _TalkIslander 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not discussing guidelines. I have no problem with the guidelines. I do have a problem with mindless adherence to them when this produces factual inaccuracy. This is most disheartening. I work as a copywriter and copyeditor. I often turn to Wikipedia for reference, especially in matters of current usage. This misapplication of Policy means that I can't trust the information I find in Wikipedia. We are self-vandalizing. rowley (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...but by that argument, any adherence to WP:MOSTM is "self-vandalism". Take Thorpe Park, for example. Their website, and probably style guidelines, dictate that the park is named 'THORPE PARK', and yet clearly it isn't suitable to go through the article (and all related articles) and change every appearence of 'Thorpe Park' to 'THORPE PARK'. That is what WP:MOSTM is for, and although this isn't as drastic an example, it's exactly the same. The trademark capitalisation is mentioned in the first sentance - that is enough. _TalkIslander 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly not "enough." For one thing, it does not explain that the name of the product is to be capitlaized this way when writing about it, not just when providing trademark attributions. The bottom line should be clear, here. If someone comes here looking for the correct way to spell and capitalize the product name when writing professionally about it, he or she will not receive correct information. If Wikipedia cannot be used to procure accurate information, what good is it? rowley (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, "it does not explain that the name of the product is to be capitlaized this way when writing about it, not just when providing trademark attributions" - says who? Citation needed... _TalkIslander 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "Says who" was a stupid question :P. I meant "Says where", but that just doesn't have the same ring to it... _TalkIslander 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to respond to that remark as T.H. Huxley responded to Samuel Wilberforce, but I'll let the mere reference suffice. Simply, this: Put yourself in the position of a writer who consults Wikipedia to ascertain the correct and precise way to write about iPod or iPod touch. He sees the statement that the name is trademarked in lowercase, but everywhere else it is shown in uppercase, or title case. What this communicates is: "when stating trademark attribution, use 'iPod touch'; when writing about it, use any old convention you want." This is not correct. Apple has clearly and consistently established usage, and it is within our capability to comply. I repeat: we are spreading misinformation, and so far I haven't seen anyone respond to this IMPORTANT point. To whom must I appeal? Jimmy Wales? rowley (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go with touch with lower case. I argue that the most important trademark is iPod, however we can use touch as a verb which would mean that it would have to be lower case. The same goes for shuffle although it is more difficult to argue for nano and classic. The other point is we can argue that the lower case word is an adjective, describing what type of iPod it is. Therefore no capitalization is warranted. This cannot be recognized as a valid reference article until this is corrected! Geoff (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo Missing

Could someone upload a new photo for the ipod touch? the current one is not showing or has been deleted. i would make an account and do it myself if i knew how. 67.164.27.43 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

jailbreak

Someone should add that 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 and 2.1 are all jailbreakable

Also, we should say how 2g iPod touches are currently unjailbreakable because of a change in the processor, and that 2g uses 2.1.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rye10516 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please notice that the iPhone OS 3.0 is currently jailbreakable: see http://blog.iphone-dev.org/post/126908912/redsn0w-in-june —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.130.204.166 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"External" speaker?

Hate to nitpick, but doesn't the second generation iPod Touch include an internal speaker? It's located inside the touch, not attached via a cable to the device. 209.90.134.65 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any input after a couple days, I've made the change. After all, it's entirely contained within the device, so I don't know what's supposed to be "external" about it. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Apple says it's a speaker. Some say it's external, because it's sending the sound outside, but I say external means it should be visible from the outside. It's not, grills are not cut out for it, it uses the metal back to vibrate sound out of the iPod. So it's internal. I really doubt anyone would care (74.14.220.119 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC))

Mass storage (in)capability

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but a big distinction between the iPod Touch and all other iPod models is the fact that it can't function as a mass storage device. That's an important catch, and it isn't mentioned in the article. I'm still looking through the Apple website to find a page to cite this. It would also be useful to write why this is so (I hear there are compatibility issues with the Touch's file system or something). If anyone is ahead of me on this one, help would be appreciated. 67.170.85.139 (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an app in the app store right now that will allow a user to put whatever files they can on their iPod Touch. It is completely ligitmate, though the file transfer must occur over a wireless networkGyrferret (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gyrferret, what App is this that you mention? Aside: Where is the reference for the amount of memory for the iPod touch. I question the accuracy of this figure. 128 MB seems low, especially since the iPhone has 512 MB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptcolo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dual fair use required in new image

The new image used in the article pictures Tap Tap Revenge played on iPod touch. As with all iPhone OS 2.0 applications, the application is not free and requires a fair use policy. I suggest we include a different one from the Apple website that shows an original application, so the image will only use the fair use policy once.

Smiley Barry

12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are free 2.0 games... And they have the image on their site, which you're able to copy. No harm done. If they didn't want us to have it they would have made it uncopy-able. TTR probably let Apple release the image everywhere, this image is used to ADVERTISE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.220.119 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Revamp whole article?

I like the style of the iPod Nano article, or at least when I last took a look at it. I liked a description of the iPod in general, and a section for each generation or update, with tech specs for each one, and a paragraph on what was updated from the last one, and criticism from customers (like Early Screen problems, or Yellower screen, Battery life) (Mrdonnelly (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

iPod Touch reviews

Since I know this isn't the place to discuss the iPod Touch itself, anyone who actually owns one, please drop a personal review on my talk page. Thanks. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of "Technical Specs"

I was noticing today that the article is only using the 2nd generation iPod Touch Specs. This is fine and dandy and all, but this is wikipedia! We gotta make a table called "Technical Specifications" that includes the specs of both generations and all (possible) generations to follow....13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs)

Product is not colloquially called iTouch

My argument is that the product is not colloquially called the iTouch, it is *incorrectly* called the iTouch. That is not the product name and just because people call it by the wrong name doesn't change that fact. Having it in the article gives the air of being correct or acceptable when it is not. If a bunch of people call me John when my name is Christopher doesn't mean that John is now an acceptable name to call me. Please consider changing it.

-Christopher Wertman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdionysus (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 October 2008

 Not done, there's several decent sources provided in the article (including respected news sources such as Arstechnica) referring to it as an iTouch. It is indeed not the official name, but it's certainly widely used - and that's pretty much what 'colloquial' means. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These sources do not state this as a fact or even explain the 'colloquial' usage of iTouch. The inclusion of this colloquial name is original research. riffic (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, inclusion is not an affective argument method on Wikipedia. Simply, it just means the other examples mentioned on Wikipedia mean they might also be wrong. Groink (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The unofficiality of the nickname does not make it "wrong", "incorrect", or unencyclopedic. Is Microsoft's name "Micro$oft" (or similar)? Certainly not; but does that mean Wikipedia should not mention at all that a significant number of people jokingly call it that? Again, no. Wikipedia includes pop-cultural information surrounding many topics, this is one such instance. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are pointing to a bunch of websites and drawing a conclusion. That is original research. Also saying that iTouch is the colloquial name, suggests that people only call it "iPod Touch" when they are talking formally. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. So at the very least, the word "colloquially" need to be replaced. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, "colloquially" does not imply that other terms for the same thing are purely formal. [1] But I've changed it anyway. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, all those sources prove is that Jeff Smykil, Jason Chen, Mark Kaelin and Nicole Martin call it the iTouch. None of the sources prove wide use. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Four separate reputable media sources all using the name does not qualify as significant/noteworthy use? Seems the bar is being set unreasonably high. I also refer you to my comment below regarding Ma Bell. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's strongly implied by the several reputable sources' use of the term in reference to the iPod touch that it's at the very least a popular nickname for the device. "Ma Bell" shouldn't be taken out of the AT&T article just because no one's written an article specifically on the emergence of the term "Ma Bell" (who would?). It's enough to cite its frequent use in popular media. Same applies analogously here. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people call it an iPod Touch, and others call it an iTouch, and so on. It doesn't matter (i think), because different people call it different things. (as an example, I call it an iPod Touch, as do 5 other people I know, and other people I know call it an iTouch.) --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what we don't have is a source stating that the iPod Touch is sometimes colloquially refered to as the iTouch; instead, we have a few sources that incorrectly refer to it as the iTouch. Big difference. Untill we have the first, we shouldn't be incorrectly refering to it as the iTouch on here - as people have pointed out, that would constitute original research. Appart from all else, it should be made clear that there is another entirely unrelated product (well, except that it's a media player) that's actually named the iTouch. No doubt named such to try and gleen some market from the iPod Touch, but that's not relevant. _TalkIslander 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The similarly named products are covered on iTouch, which is a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybercobra (talk • contribs)

Have clarified statement for greater precision as it's not technically "colloquial". Instead emphasized unofficial-ness of term. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Further research shows that Apple may have actually used iTouch at least once, though the source is not completely reliable: [2] --Cybercobra (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"not completely reliable"? An alleged screenshot of Apple's website posted anonymously on some internet forum? What could possibly be wrong with using that as a source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be sourced or used in the article. Just a funny result I came across in googling on this topic. If only text could express ironic tone... --Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are going about this completely wrong. Instead of turning to companies and sources, we should turn to what happens in day to day life. You know how many times I've pulled out my iPod (Touch) and people have said "Hey, is that an iTouch?" It doesn't matter if Apple considered it, colloquial is something that is used in casual speak.

For instance, Chevrolette was called Chevy for the longest time. Yes, the term was un-official, but that's how people refered to it as. Plus, no offense Cobra, but using the term "third-parties" seems exclusionary or something. How about just "informally"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume from that comment that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core policies. Please read them. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Until someone comes up with a source that states "iTouch" is used colloquially, the first two policies mean it doesn't belong in the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And, while we're on the subject of original research, my original research suggests the complete opposite of your's. I've had an iPod Touch for just under a year now, and I've never once heard it, colloquially or otherwise, reffered to as an iTouch. What puts your word above mine? Nothing, hence WP:OR is out of the question. _TalkIslander 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Are you replying to me or Gyrferret? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyrferret, but backing up your point, hence it's indented from your comment. It seems we two are destined to completely misunderstand one another persistantly... ;P _TalkIslander 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* I understand the point you guys are saying. I really do. Here's the known issue, is that wikipeida relies on information from other sites, yes. What's to stop me from making a website, refering to an iPod Touch an "iTouch", and then throwing it on the article as a source? Fallibility ahoy! And, at no point did I say "I've heard people call my iPod touch an 'iTouch', therefore everyone calls it an iTouch".

Second (though there was no first), can we just drop it if it's going to cause such controversy over such a tiny detail? Yes, wikipedia aims to be thurough, but at the cost of what? Progess? Can we just all just agree to disagree? Yes, it exists. It exists in my world, then again, I exist in a world where people aren't familiar with Apple products. I mean, we already had the capitalism issue. But, if the past must repeat itself (even if there is choice in the matter), then I shall sit back and relax. I feel like someone on a mountain surrounding the town on Hiroshima on that fateful day.... ahhhhhh..... I'm going back to fixing my gramatical errors; I'll leave the content to the guys with the big gunsGyrferret (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

cptcolo Charles Everson - I agree with Chris Wertmen, this is an encyclopedia, and therefore it should describe the subject as it is, simple as that. Some people incorrectly refer to it as the iTouch. It is just wrong like spelling a lot "alot". Many people do it, and anyone would understand what you are talking about, but it is not correct. A reference source must be correct, the iPod Touch should not be referred to as the iTouch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.187.156 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The other day, I was borwsing some electronics at the store that I work at. I discovered some iPod Sound systems. On one that I looked at, it had a "settings wheel" where you would adjust the base length and depth in accordance to which iPod you would mount. "iTouch". Not iPod Touch. Pictures soon to follow. I'm just saying, it's more prevailant than it should be... but it still is something take into account.Gyrferret (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How is something a company developed considered "original research"? It's something a 3rd party has made and it is how that company refers to the iPod Touch.Gyrferret (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that your personal experience should be included in the article, then that is original research. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What?!?!?!??!? I'm not suggesting that this is my expirience. I'm stating flat out that this is how a company refers to a product. That is not my personal expirience. That is a verifiable fact.Gyrferret (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even given us the name of the product. At this point all we have is your personal anecdote. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote Gyrferret: "Pictures soon to follow". If we're going to be completely 100% picky, then yes, right now all we have is his anecdotel evidence, so right now it's OR. If, however, he posts said pictures, then it's a different matter, and we have no reason to assume that he's not going to... _TalkIslander 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to post photos. Gyrferret can tell us which product has the word "iTouch" printed on it. I'm sure there will be photos already available on the web. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That of course would work too. All I'm saying is quit jumping straight down his throat... _TalkIslander 21:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Islander. The product is the iLive Karaoke machine. One of the settings on the Dock is for "iTouch". If you cannot find a picture online, lemme know and I can snag one on a shift of mine.Gyrferret (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't call the iPod Nano the iNano, or the iClassic, so why the iTouch? Mr. moose (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because it was so similar to the iPhone in functionality that people latched onto the "i_______" frenzy. So when the iPod Touch was released, people may have took it as... "it's not just an iPod, it's an iTouch". I'm just guessing here. Hell, even a guy on the news called his iPod Touch an iTouch. No. That's not original research. That's just conveying what I saw on the news. joy.... Gyrferret (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have heard it called "iTouch." That doesn't make it colloquial; merely incorrect. rowley (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went to the iLive home page in hopes of finding the product in question raised by Gyrferret. There is indeed a reference to an "iTouch 2nd gen." and "iTouch Rotary Setting" on their site under the "CD+G Karaoke Player with Dock for iPod® IJ309B" karaoke product under the FAQ (last question) but on the same page they also refer to the product as an iPod Touch. Their FAQ is inconsistent and unclear as to whether iTouch is referring to iPod Touch or their own wheel technology on the device. I simply wanted to offer this link to this discussion, not to take sides in particular. BrionSwanson (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone can bring forward reliable sources that state more or sess that people other than the writer of the article refer to the device as an itouch, these sorts of statements can be kept. Until then, it's wp:or and if added will be promptly removed. riffic (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

*cough* *cough* --Cybercobra (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

*cough* A handful of people all making the same mistake doesn't prove anything except a handful of people all made the same mistake. *cough* AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When four separate mainstream reliable sources use the term, I think it can be safely assumed it's not a mistake. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've run into this problem before, where an entire continent believes VHS stands for vertical helical scan, while the inventor and the rest of the world says VHS stands for video home system. Matter of fact, if you do searches on the Internet, you'll find dozens of references for vertical yada yada. BUT still, the increase in number of people mis-intepreting the acronym does not validate the mis-interpretation. And that's why despite the sources, vertical yada yada ceases to exist in the article. That's how sources should be used on Wikipedia - not to prove that an entire population of on-line people use itouch because they're too lazy to type "iPod touch", but rather to validate the correct information that was being used by Apple on Day 1. Here's the reality of it all: with each passing day, one or more trademarks are being shortened because of people's inability to say something like "International House of Pancakes" or "Dairy Queen". Groink (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Groink, you're kind of misinterpreting this.. The source needs to say more or less that "people refer to the device as an itouch (colloquially | incorrectly | mistakenly)." So far none of the sources have presented anything other than the author using 'itouch' in the title or lede. But I agree with you about the rest of it. riffic (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how are the articles, by virtue of their use of the term, not direct proof that some people call the device by that name? --Cybercobra (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you're drawing your own conclusions. riffic (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It proves use of the term to refer to this product, regardless of how you want to classify the alias (colloquial, incorrect, mistaken). Your objection seems to apply only to the classification (which I grant), not the use of the term itself. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It proves nothing other than that the authors of those articles use the term, and your ability to draw from that conclusion a fact that is your own. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." riffic (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided my proof. Many of you were hoping that I wouldn't. And when I did, you refuted it with yet another argument. For some reason, many of the proponents of this argument that "it's not an iTouch"seem to find this article in particular more sacred than a church. My Goodness. What's so wrong with putting "incorrectly called an iTouch?. If you search wikipedia for "iTouch", it redirects to "iPod Touch". By the standards set down, the article "iTouch" shouldn't redirect to anything. Let's assume that someone does a search trying to find out what an "iTouch" is. They will find themselves asking themselves "This is an article for the iPod Touch". We should put a note that the product can incorrectly be called an iTouch. With these standards, the page "iTouch" shouldn't redirect to anything. It shouldn't even exist.

EDIT: After reading the rest of the rest of this talk page, I ran into an oddity. Sr.AlistairMcMillan noted in THIS contribution that "compared to touches..." What's a "touch"? For the reason that even we don't ALWAYS call it "iPod Touch" ALL the time, we should at least note that it is INCORRECTLY called an iTouch. I've said what I need to say. KTHNXBYE Gyrferret (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no title picture?

Shouldn't there be a title picture of the 2nd generation touch? there is not one picture of the 2nd gen on the whole page. brent (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the 2nd gen iPod touch looks almost the same as the 1st gen, so there isn't much of a need. 75.79.12.86 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While I kinda agree, it's hard to get a "nice" picture of the 2nd gen. iPod Touch. The 1st gen picture in itself is a miracle in itself that it is present on wikipedia because of the stringent copyright laws around it. But, if someone has a 2nd gen. iPod Touch on hand that they are willing to take an artistic photograph of, then by all means do so and slap it up.Gyrferret (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Specifications

According to the Apple site, the 2nd generation iPod Touch does not, i repeat, not have an internal speaker capable of playing any music. From experience, the internal speaker generates the click noises and the standard alarm beep. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because the specifacation is considered biased. Test an actual iPod Touch 2G at an Apple Store. It does indeed have a built-in speaker. Also, you were mentioning the old iPod Touch 1G.--Megamanfan3 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Megamanfan3: Apple's site is NOT biased. The specs I saw came from Apple, so thus, Apple must have issued the wrong tech specs page (this means that apple should update their technical specs of the iPod Touch). --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC) (intended to post this 3 days ago, but forgot)

Apple's site clearly says the second generation iPod touch does. "A built-in speaker lets you hear the music, dialogue, and action without headphones, perfect for casual listening."[3] AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To megamanfan3: Thanks for stating the obvious that I am wrong, and since I am wrong, I can clearly see that the preceding message is regarding the iPod Touch 1G, so PLEASE stop stating the OBVIOUS.
To AlistairMcMillan: I did not see that page (I looked at the technical specs that Apple provides).
--TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are right. They don't mention the internal speaker on the Technical Specifications page. It is however mentioned on a bunch of other pages about the iPod touch and Jobs mentioned it in his presentation, so it is definitely there. An omission on their part, I guess. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should tell Apple that, because that is a SERIOUS omission on their part. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Recenter! Umm, while I feel it is something to be notable, this shouldn't turn into an "iPod Touch" vs. "iPod touch" fight. However, there is an internal speaker, yes. There is an internal speaker in the 1G. Yes, there is an internal speaker in the 2G. However, where do we draw the line? Technically, every "speaker" is internal. Look at your phone. Technically, every speaker is "inside" the phone. I think the term "external speaker" should be limited to Stereo systems and the likes.

Yes, it looks mislead from even Apple's website, as the photo illustrates the speaker as being just on the outside of the input-area-thing. At any rate, [4]. Enjoy!Gyrferret (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyrferret, this argument was about whether the internal speaker could play music, not whether there was or wasn't an internal speaker in the iPod touch. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well, if there's only one speaker to be found, and it is on the inside.... I think some math is starting to kick in.... But I agree, perhaps it was an oversite on Apple's part. As smart wikipedians' we should be able to reason things out for ourselves rather than consistently rely on sources, because even sources are fallible to error.Gyrferret (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Everson - I own the 2nd Gen iPod Touch, I am listening to music coming from the built in speaker right now. It works for palying music, but is rather pathetic. At the lowest volume, it is as loud middle volume on my LG 8350 playing music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptcolo (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Include MSRP at release

After researching how the release prices of ipods have changed with new generations, I looked for reliable sources (apple itself--press release), learned how to edit tables and added the MSRP's at release. My changes were soon reverted with a polite explanation and link to the no price policy.

The spirit of the policy seems to be for wikipedia to not become a "lowest price" or "bargain hunting" site but the release prices are different in the sense that they will never change and add valuable information to the article (even historically significant information). 67.191.92.195 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating the price into the aricle serves no purpose whatsoever unless pricing of the product is notable and too historically important to ignore (which in this case, it is not). If people want to know how much an iPod Touch costs, they can google it or ask someone who owns one. If they want to compare the price of previous versions, like I said, Google is your friend. Please re-read WP:NOTCATALOG, especially #4. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but you missed the point... it is not about how much an ipod costs, it is about how much it cost at launch which could or could not be its current price (which I do agree is irrelevant.) That is an important part of the ipod as I'm sure if it had had a higher release price it would not have been so successful; it's information that will never change and will always be part of the ipod. It is historically significant in the sense that even 100 years from now it will matter to people what the release price was.

You're right that google is likely to have that information but it is also likely to have every other piece of information on this site and much more, yet this site is hugely popular and useful so I dont know how valid that argument is. All right, mods know best so I'll stop bugging now. 67.191.92.195 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As much I would love to agree, it seems to early in the product's life cycle to include MSRP. Imagine if we included the MSRP for every brand of gum. Maybe down the road, yeah, it'll be worth sticking in a timeline of specs and/or prices. As it stands, I see no reason to include it. However, I think we should still leave the RIDICULOUS cost of the "upgrades" and "updates".Gyrferret (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd Generation iPod Touch photo

Does anyone have a picture of the updated iPod Touch 2G to be used as the main photo?(VisvambaNathan (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

For those wanting the title image to be that of the iPod touch 2G

I'm not sure if it's allowed to be used on Wikipedia but on the PR section of Apple's site there are 3 very good images of the iPod touch. Again not sure if it's allowed but I wanted to mention it anyway.

Oh and if that doesn't work I'm about to get one so maybe I could get a nice shot of it.

I believe that so long as we are give the permission to use those images by apple, then it should have no issue being on the page. Even the image used now is "for lack of a better image". The legality surrounding it is kinda in question. I'm sure apple will have no problem with it, because we're not "demeaning" their product and negatively affecting sales.Gyrferret (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not quite correct, no. Apple would have to give permission for anyone to use the image, i.e. release it under the GFDL - it's very unlikely that they'd do that. If they gave only Wikipedia permission to use it, we couldn't. Any such image would fall foul of I3 in the criteria for speedy deletion. See this note from Jimbo back in 2005. _TalkIslander 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, cannot we use an image under the same rationale as the image that exists on the page right now "in the absence of a free alternative"? Well, a photograph of a 2nd gen. would be justified, though my only qualm would be the quality of the photograph....Gyrferret (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have used an image of the 2g from the commons along with the fair use screenshot that has been used for a while to update the image. The licensing is no different than the previous image, so we should be set. Sir Stig (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I managed to photograph my 2G touch today, and I through this together: http://e.imagehost.org/0362/ipod_touch.png. It's hardly an example of my greatest Photoshop ability, but it's decent and free-use minus the screenshot (I hereby release my parts of the picture to public domain). Sir Stig (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Screen Resolution.

Question out there fella's. Why is it that the iPod Touch and iPhone both have screen resolutions listed as 480x320? For normal use (not watching videos), wouldn't the resolution be 320x480? The same could be said for any monitor or television. The resolution on most computer moniters is 1024x768. But, say I tilt mine sideways to view a video. Would the screen resolution still be 1024x768, or would it become 768x1024?

I ask this only for a sense of standardization. Shouldn't we measure resolution on an "this is how you use it" axis? Yes, you watch videos in a sideways manner, but the way the home screen is presented as well the seemingly default position for most applications fits the 320x480 rationale. Comments? Please? Gyrferret (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, bear in mind WP:TALK please... I don't really see how this discussion will lead to improving the article... _TalkIslander 09:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the iPod Nano and the iPod Touch have resolutions that are taken with the product sideways. I believe that there should be at least some uniformity across all screen resolutions with the product used in the "default" position. Gyrferret (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the maximum resolution is what matters. Keeps it consistent with monitors.Mdenk (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Apple web page http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html lists the display as 640 x 480 pixels

Paragraph order in Third-party Applications section

In the Third-party Applications section, shouldn't the paragraph describing Apple's SDK come before the paragraph about jail-breaking?VisvambaNathan (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Since the SDK came after the jailbreak method, it should actually be after it. (Chronological order) Smiley Barry 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that says we should cover everything in chronological order. And given that the numbers of jailbroken iPod touches are likely a tiny percentage compared to touches running SDK-based apps, we should give precedence to the SDK mention. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the number could well be over, since version 2.2 (the latest) can be jailbroken like any other, and so people could enjoy the SDK apps and jailbreak apps. Also, I am certain the jailbreak part was there before the SDK paragraphs, so why not just put it after it, as with 99% of all sensible content additions on Wikipedia? (You don't go and put new information above old information, right? Even more likely you don't do it when the new subject was created after the old. Just like history sections.)Smiley Barry 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

how much

which is better ipod touch gen 1 or ipod touch gen 2

wats is the difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.60.56 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia - please take a look at WP:TALK _TalkIslander 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Who knows--92.10.96.93 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: section about operating system

I think there should be a separate section of what OS the iPod touch runs (which is the iPhone OS. Photographerguy (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Storage capability

I realize this might not belong here, but I didn't see it mentioned in the article. Is it possible to upgrade the flash memory of an iPod Touch? I am looking to get one but they are ridiculously overpriced (as are most Apple devices), so I will likely have to get the 8GB one. Is it possible to expand this later or will it always be 8GB? TJ Spyke 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It will always be 8Gb. _TalkIslander 09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No and please remember this is NOT a forum. Stealth (talk)

Ipod Touch 1st Generation and Second Genration

Shouldn't there be a to sections speaking about both generations or the information isn't there yet? Agent Mr (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Permanent state of semi-protection

I have noticed that this article is being vitually permanently semi-protected. Yet I don't really see any evidence of "excessive vandalism" during the brief period the article was unprotected last time. Essentially there were just a couple of vandalizing edits made from the same IP address. I doubt that this constitutes excessive vandalism and would like to note that keeping the article protected all of the time inhibits its progress by potentially preventing good, constructive edits from coming.Yavrey (est vrai) (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

There are a couple of reasons why I believe there's no need for a criticism section here. First, Apple iPod touch is a consumer product, not a feature film or a scientific theory for which reception by the public/peers/critics are vitally important. Yes, consumer goods sometimes spark a public outcry, which may warrant an appropriate mentioning. But including all sorts of critical remarks? Think about a section like this for a popular/widespread product, say, 'Microsoft Windows' or 'Toyota Corolla'. Folks at Wikipedia would probably need to buy another server just to store a humongous 'List of Things People Don't Like About [whatever the product is]'.

Secondly, a Criticism section is very prone to POV of various kinds. Let's not forget that the primary objective of any Wikipedia article is to inform the reader about the subject in a positive, not normative sense. For example, the article already metions that iPod touch users had to pay $20 for the iPhone OS ver.2. This is a fact. Putting it under the Criticism banner turns it into a POV instance because it is now implied that Apple did something bad. Stating that Google Maps differ in the iPod touch and the iPhone versions of the device would be stating a fact (if it's indeed true, of course). On the other hand, treating this as a critical remark is equivalent to saying that this is wrong and shouldn't be this way. Finally, the very fact that a critical remark appeared on Gizmodo (or Cnet, or somewhere else) by itself does not make it more legitimate than a comment you or I can make --- if you read the legalese of those sites, it is stated that views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavrey (talk • contribs) 22:44, March 16, 2009

There are plenty of articles for consumer products that contain a "criticism", "controversy" or similarly named section. Just look at iPod Shuffle, Hummer, Ford Explorer, even iPhone (among many other examples) to see what I am talking about. Hell, there are even articles like Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Facebook, etc.

I decided to reinstate the "Criticism" section as an editor had cut out the majority of it for being unsourced (some of which actually did have sources), and someone else decided to move the little piece that remained to another part of the article. I added more sources to fix such concerns. Scootey (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that people make a one off payment when they buy an iPod touch, but make monthly payments when they buy an iPhone right? So it isn't quite correct to say iPhone users get the applications for "free". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of this... criticism of that... Yeah, sure there're lots of critical remarks all over the Wikipedia. Does their presence somehow invalidate the reasons (above) that I gave for not having a dedicated criticism section?Yavrey (est vrai) (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yavrey, this is absolute and COMPLETE rubbish, and I don't buy a word of it (ANY of the reasons for not having a crit section). If a product is being criticized, you can by all means cite those criticisms, EVEN if those points are mentioned in other article sections. (or else there is simply no way to send the reader the message that there are criticisms - like with any other article - and with the logic presented here, you could also justify doing it the other way around, and REMOVE all the points from the other sections, and pile them all into a Crit section. Except that it makes more sense for obvious criticisms to go in a Criticisms section) And it doesn't matter if a particular element (that multiple reputable sources are blasting) makes it "seem" like a company did something bad: that's NOT what criticisms are even supposed to point out, unless the sources said something about "badness" too... All they say is that X element is being criticized, because it is, and people have the right to know about it, and likewise cite it in an article. As with every.... other.... crit section.... on Wikipedia. This is out of this world. You guys are trying to keep a stone-wall up against having a Crit section (no matter WHAT it contains) both here and on the IPhone page, and I can't see it staying up very long at all.--Dario D. (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario D: whether you buy it or not is up to you. It's perfectly ok to criticize things "to send the reader the message that there are criticisms", provided you write in your personal blog or something. However, when writing an encyclopedia artcle, the existence of a Web page which documents someone's opinion on something does not make it a valid reference to strengthen a generalizing claim (that there are criticisms).Yavrey (est vrai) (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I answered the Wikipedia:Third opinion request at Talk:IPhone#Call For Criticisms. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone 2.0 Software Update date

Hello, I saw that the date for this update was changed by an anonymous IP user to July 11, 2008, and changed back to July 15. The iPhone OS version history page supports the July 11 date, as does this Apple press release. The Wikipedia iPhone OS page also lists a security patch (iPhone OS 1.1.5) that was released on July 15 for iPod Touch users who chose not to upgrade to 2.0. Based on all this, I think July 11 is the correct date to list in the "Description" section. LovesMacs (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ZuneHD Related and See Also

Zune HD should be added as "related" and "See also". Links to ipod touch are included on the Zune HD page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.141.166 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of "See also". There are many, many competing products for the iPod touch. We are not going to list every one of them in this article. As for what editor do with the Zune HD article, frankly we could care less. groink 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo issue, version 3927

One of the editors are animate about the non-free issue, and therefore keeps trying to change the photo to hide the copyrighted photo of the software. We decided a long time ago (read the archives) that it is essential to show the home screen. Despite the many attempts to create one, we decided to go against Wikipedia's policy regarding use of imagery based on fair use (Wikipedia's policy is more strict than U.S. fair use laws,) and use the official Apple graphic. We decided to do this just for the English Wikipedia because it is based in the United States, and therefore it is all right under U.S. fair use laws to use it. Seeing the dissenting editor is French, he could not do this on the French Wikipedia, which is probably why this logic isn't registering (this is not an insult to the French - read his talk page.) groink 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Undo last modification

I can't undo it because the page is semi-protected. I think you know why I ask it (check the modification of Ben420 at 22:45, 1 June 2009). Thanks Looler (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aspect ratio fix

Just like with the iPhone, upright, the resolution is 320x480, for an aspect ratio of 2:3, as commonly defined as width:height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iioooio79879 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem using this method is that when a video is ripped to run on an iPhone or iPod touch, the ripper must use 480x320. If you go around telling people that the iPhone is 320x480, you're going to see a whole lot of mis-formatted rips. You've got to keep in mind that although the phone is operated in a portrait format, the videos can only play in landscape - and videos played at 480x320. This is why, when it comes to resolution, you can't go around applying cell phone standards to a device like the iPhone or iPod touch. groink 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Add Serbian page to links

Please add this page as sr=iPod Touch to the list.

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_Touch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovanpetrovic (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. groink 09:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone OS. I have found errors.

I have noticed an error in the iPod Touch Wikipedia Article and would like to request someone with high enough privileges to fix this. I have found the following errors.

1. It says somewhere (Can't Remember Where): "iPhone OS 3.0 update will unlock Bluetooth" Where it should say: "iPhone OS 3.0 update has unlocked Bluetooth"

Fixed --Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Under specifications: "current version 2.2.1" Where it should say: "current version 3.0"

Fixed --Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please fix these errors as I dont have privileges to edit semiprotected acticles. Thank-You

Technical specifications Reference

This page appears to have a summary of Iphone and Ipod touch technical specifications. It should be included as an additional reference.

http://petrolstone.uuuq.com/iphonespecs.php Imsome (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS to see what a reliable source is. That site isn't one. And if you're trying to spam your web site (because I see you've linked that site on 3 different pages so far) give up. -- Atama^chat 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted that link on the iphone and ipod touch TALK pages because it was relevant to those articles. If you don't think it's a reliable source that's fine but don't go accusing someone of wrong doing when It was posted as a suggested inclusion on a talk page. Imsome (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We think the site you linked to is spamming because the contents of the page is basically a collection of information one could have obtained from apple.com or even this very Wikipedia article. The qualification for an external link is if the site contains unique information not found in any other source, AND therefore expands beyond what is covered in the Wikipedia article. Please read WP:LINKS for more information. Groink (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch has 3G?

According to the article: "To use the iPod Touch for buying products at the iTunes Music Store via 3G or Wi-Fi, an iTunes Store account must be created and the account details then entered into the iPod.[citation needed]"

The Touch obviously doesn't have a 3G or even a GSM radio built in so I think it's safe to say we can get rid of the 3G part. (Bswenso2 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

ipod touch 3 gen request. could a user add a page about a speculated ipod tpuch

pinch media. detected the iphone 3gs the 3.0 software and now maybe the iPod touch 3 gen.here is proof http://cnettv.cnet.com/?tag=hdr;brandnav and http://www.pinchmedia.com/blog/ipod-31/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.78.160 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Consult WP:SPECULATION. Groink (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

time line on releases.

i would like a time line or list of dates on releases of the iPod touch. also in the list or timeline any firmware updates and speculations of upcoming IPod. to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodahour (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ipod touch 3rd gen?

A lot of rumors are piling up about the ipod touch 3rd gen, but there are a few websites that I found for proof. click on the link below:

[5] Elpollero35 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As the old saying goes... We won't add this to Wikipedia until we hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Groink (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no third generation

The iPod touch has only been updated. A third generation model does not exist. It's only a updated second generation. Someone please fix the timeline! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.119.142 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But the new iPods are faster and have voice control i.e. The "new" 2nd gen 32GB iPod touch is not the same as the "old" 2nd gen 32GB iPod touch. Isn't this enough to call it 3rd gen, or at least be distinguished from the old one? 81.174.169.164 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Apple calls it the third generation:

[6]

69.255.16.132 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

go back to that link. Apple has updated it to say "iPod touch 32GB and 64GB (Fall 2009)." And then go to http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iPod_touch_3.1_User_Guide.pdf

That is a manual from Apple's Support website. It is generic for all iPod touches running iPhone OS 3.1. Whenever Apple wants to distinguish between the 2nd gen (2008) and 2nd gen (2009) they put up the following: (available only on Fall 2009 models with 32 GB or more) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.125.150.86 (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, Apple can even confirm that the 32 and 64gb models are 3rd gen, They said it at the press conference, and on that link. Someone needs to fix this page and reflect those changes. I am intrested in the specs of the new Processor and Graphics chip. Sims2master5 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that internally it is referred to as the iPod3,1. Dustin Howett (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

definitely 3rd gen iPod Touch. The 32 and 64 GB versions are new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefatmould (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

the newest iPod touch is not the 3rd gen judging from the apple homepage http://support.apple.com/specs/#ipodtouch , even though capacity is changed and the processor may be changed. the generation of Nano is changed to 5th in this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.94.230.123 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but please remember the iPhone 3GS is the same exact design as the iPhone 3G, and of course comes with a faster processor, and is still a different generation of iPhone. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, However, In that site : http://support.apple.com/specs/#iphone, the iPhone 3GS is differently listed. but the new iPod touch isn't. So the new iPod touch mustn't be 3rd-gen, even though the Generation have been confusing an Apple employee in the site you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.34.215.34 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The device is, however, an entirely new hardware revision, bearing a new application processor and graphics core. The iPhone 2G was iPhone1,1; the 2G was 1,2. The 3GS was 2,1, signifying an entirely new generation. Similarly, the iPod Touch has seen iPod1,1, iPod2,1, and the most recent addition, iPod3,1 - signifying that they are all considered entirely different hardware generations. Combine that with the reference to "third generation" on Apple's website. Dustin Howett (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Music playback time is not 36 hours for new versions

Here http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html . Can anyone write new ipod touches's (32&64gb) cpu and ram details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teorik Deli (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

iPod touch "2G/3G" image.

Can somebody take a screenshot of the current default home screen? The icons are not in that order for the 3rd generation. We need the latest iPod touch generation in this article and the image I'm seeing looks like the iPod touch 2G. The App Store has replaced the iTunes Store in the dock. Safari replaces Photos in the dock as well. Please take a screenshot someone (you can go to apple.com and see all the images of iPod touch 3Gs on the first home screen and if you have an iPod touch 2G you can just rearrange all the icons in that order; that would work as well.) and get it approved. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

802.11n

As noted here: [7] the Touch now has hardware 802.11n support. Should that be mentioned in the article? -Pyro3d (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not supported in the firmware however, so I don't think it really matters, or at most should only be mentioned in passing. Altairantares (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd Gen iPod Touch has FM radio receive and transmit hardware

Note the recent articles (Sept. 11, 2009) where the newest additions (at least the new 32 and 64 GB versions) now have been taken apart and they found that they have Broadcom chipsets that support Wi-Fi 802.11N capabilities as well as FM radio receive and transmit capabilities. In the 2nd Gen iPod Touches they found a Bluetooth chipset when dismantling that model earlier that was unannounced by Apple and wasn't enabled until a newer OS update was released that subsequently enabled the Bluetooth feature they had originally hidden. Will history repeat itself here? It would appear so. It is likely that another future OS update will add WiFi N and FM abilities since the hardware is already there. Please update your specs page on the newer models to reflect the additional hardware discoveries. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.77.74 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd gen's wireless chipset has an FM radio as well. Apple doesn't seem very interested in enabling it, or anything. Bluetooth was kinda a given, though. Dustin Howett (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Zune HD in See Also?

I know they get compared a lot in tech media these days, but I don't feel a direct link is needed. I think the links to comparison articles is enough to show readers the main difference between the two. --112.203.91.118 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Adding any competitive product in the See also section is an attempt to push the idea that said product is superior to every other product that competes with the iPod touch. Groink (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

iPod touch 3rd generation image!

Change the image of the iPod touch! The iPod touch 3G has a different default home screen layout than the 2nd generation when it had 2.1 software.

Look here for the new iPhone OS 3.1 default home screen: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/home-screen.html

69.255.16.132 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3G.

The line in the second paragraph needs to be altered. "The iPod Touch is currently in its third generation (3G)".

3G (As Defined by Wikipedia) "is a family of standards for mobile telecommunications defined by the International Telecommunication Union,[1] which includes GSM EDGE, UMTS, and CDMA2000 as well as DECT and WiMAX. "

Because of this, saying the 3rd Generation iPod Touch is 3G, really brings up confusion especially because of the iPhone 3G (That is not the 3rd Generation, it Just uses the 3G network). My proposal is to simply remove the "(3G)" portion of the line. That is all. Thank you . —Preceding unsigned comment added by H0LY.J3SUS (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but most people always have started calling iPods in this notation: iPod xG ; as in the xth generation iPod ever since the 2nd generation iPod (classic) came out a few years ago. It has become sort of a trend. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline: Include iPhone

iPhone's so intertwined in this whole story; it'd be nice to see it appear in the timeline. (Especially as the iPhone page doesn't include a timeline.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahemoff (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No Bluetooth support

The iPod Touch 2G does not have Bluetooth support; it has a BT radio that cannot be enabled by the user unless jailbroken, and even then it really is not useful.

I'd update the article, but I've tried logging in too many times with the wrong password, plus the article is protected. 93.161.59.1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

... What? No, the 3.0 software update officially enables Bluetooth on the iPod touch 2G. Period. And the text in the article regards its availability, not its perceived usefulness. Dustin Howett (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? My apologies. Thank you for clearing that up (lucky that I hadn't removed the text, then, though a revision to reflect that a paid upgrade is necessary might be in place) 93.161.59.1 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Ive got a brand new 8gb with os 3.x. Bluetooth works fine.86.16.163.55 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Game Device

The iPod Touch is also a portable Gaming device, as Steve Jobs has said himself.

I don't see your point here. Everything's a game device. If it's got a CPU, it's a gaming device. I'm anti-over-categorizing, and trying to fit something like the iPod touch into other categories is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's just Apple marketing for you. Unlike the Nintendo DS or Sony PSP, it wasn't built from the ground up for gaming. The fact that you can use it for games is just a subset of its overall app functionality as a handheld computer. --112.203.108.22 (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if you say that then you would have to include the hundreds of windows mobile PDAs as gaming devices, for example. They arent. They are general purpose handhelds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.163.55 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The new iPod touch is definite 2G instead of 3G according to a clue on official website

OK, now we can ensure that the new iPod touch is still 2nd generation instead of 3rd. Please go to Apple Store and find an iPod accessory, such as this, and pay attention to the compatibility: the most advanced iPod touch is still 2nd generation, but this is not data delay, because iPod nano 5G is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghostsoft (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to disagree. While the Apple store may list the 2008 touch as equivalent to the 2009 touch in terms of compatible accessories this is simply not the case in terms of the 2009 32 and 64 device capabilities and hardware. As there is no accessory incompatibility between 2008 and 2009 it makes sense that Apple would not differentiate between them to assist customers in purchasing compatible accessories.

There are many data points that indicate that the 32 and 64 GB 2009 models are a new generation: The device codes (which come from Apple) are 3,1 up from 2,1, indicating significant hardware changes (2009 8gb remains 2,1). The Apple site tech specs lists the 8gb model separate from the 32 and 64 gb models. Those same specs show a video and main processor that is upgraded on the 2009 32 and 64 models. The model number starts with "MC" in the 2009 models, 2008 models were listed as "MB" and the origional 2007 as "MA." Many (all I have seen) official resellers list the 2009 model as "3rd Generation." All other references to the 2009 ipod Touch on this and other wikipedia pages refering to the 2009 ipod touch refer to it as the 3rd Generation. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPhone_and_iPod_Touch_models

Which lists the 32 and 64 as separate 3rd gen models from the 8gb models.

Due to the preponderance of evidence pointing to the 32 and 64 as a 3rd gen model and the 8gb a reduced price hold over from last year I am looking for more evidence that the 2009 32 and 64s should be considered 2nd gen beyond the omission of a 3rd gen listing on the Apple Store. I'll wait a few days but unless more info surfaces I'm going to lobby for the 2009 32 and 64 to be listed as 3rd generation Dopplerd (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's already being treated as a 3rd gen on Wiki since the announcement, any lobbying to be done would be in favor of having the new 32 and 64 be treated as a 2nd gen on Wiki. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iPod_touch_3.1_User_Guide.pdf In this manual, whenever Apple wants to distinguish between the 2008 and 2009 models, Apple uses the following: "(available only on Fall 2009 models with 32 GB or more)." Apple is not calling this a 3rd generation product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.23.195 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is only because of the physical shape of the iPods. The accessory has to be listed as compatible with the 5th generation iPod nano because the 5th and the 4th differ in physical shape (at least the screen). The 2nd generation iPod touch compatibility label is still there and not the 3rd generation because the 2nd and the 3rd are exactly the same physical shape; ergo, if it is compatible with the 2nd generation iPod touch, it is compatible with the 3rd generation. It is simply unneccessary to even list the 3rd generation as compatible. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Apple.com, the iPod touch 3G does NOT exist

See this page:
http://www.apple.com/support/ipod/service/prices/#us
All iPod touch models are as follows:



iPod touch 8 GB
iPod touch 8 GB (2nd gen.)
iPod touch 8 GB (Late 2009)
iPod touch 16 GB
iPod touch 16 GB (2nd gen.)
iPod touch 32 GB
iPod touch 32 GB (2nd gen.)
iPod touch 32 GB (Late 2009)
iPod touch 64 GB (Late 2009)



It would be great to correct the Wikipedia page.

Thanks! Iforget2020 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, several other pages on Apple refer to the newest iPod touch as 2nd late 2009. PaleAqua (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

8GB Model

Please note for future edits that the 8GB iPod is NOT a third-generation device. The specifications on Apple's website are those of the original 2nd-generation device, and they are separate for a reason. It does not belong in the table with "Third". Thanks! Dustin Howett (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Pumapayam (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is still be sold and produced by apple as far as I know though, the graph at least should include that fact.Altairantares (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is still not fixed, it still lists the 8gb in the 3rd generation table. It is still a 2nd generation device being sold concurrently, in the same manner as the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS Amdavidson (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 8GB is a third generation. I have one. The way to tell if it is third or not is that the third has voice memos. Also the stocks app logo is slightly different. And mine has those two apps that come default and it is an 8GB. Just to clarify with you the third has voice memos which mine has and it is an 8gb. And mine has the default Third Generation Home Screen. The Guitar Master (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But it doesnt have the internals. The new 8gb model still has the old crappy RAM and CPU whereas the 32 and 64 gig models have the faster ones out of the iphone 3GS.134.36.36.107 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 3G has double the ram?

That statement in the first paragraph must be cited, because I myself have been researching if it has and this is the ONLY article I have found on the internet that claims it has double the RAM. Only the processor speed has been confirmed when it comes to system performance. And it's still not cited. --70.78.217.15 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It does. You can check it if you jailbreak it. The current lower end (8gb) ones dont though, but all the bigger ones do.

Yep. The 3g ipods (with the exception of the 8gb one) have the internals out of the iphone 3gs.134.36.36.107 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to iPod touch

If "iPod" is to be capitalized with lower case, "touch" should also reflect the marketed name. ArtistScientist (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a long discussion some archives back when we decided that, per WP:MOS-TM, we should not use the "touch" "mini" "nano" or other such marketed names. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its being re-discussed above Talk:IPod Touch#Move iPod Touch to iPod touch etc -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No 3rd-gen iPod touch 8gb

The 8gb iPod touch was not updated to the improved 3GS-like specs in Sept. 2009, similar to the $99 iPhone 3G holdback. The main article doesn't seem to make this distinction clear, especially the info table listing the info on each generation. Could this be updated to be more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.52.23 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Sorafune +1 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim is backed up by the other Wikipedia article "List of iPod models". I know from first-hand experience, because I bought an 8GB "third generation" iPod touch 8GB, believing from this very Wikipedia page that it had third generation features such as more RAM and a faster processor. But it doesn't - as the guy says, there is no such thing as a third generation 8GB iPod touch. The 8GB model still available is second generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.31.61 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Its also made clear in the press release. There is a bit of an edit war going on on this topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple refers to the September 2009, 8 GB iPod Touch also as a late 2009 model. See "iPod touch 8 GB (Late 2009) - Technical Specifications". and "iPod touch: Which iPhone 3.1 Software features does my iPod touch support?".. Many other pages support pages mention the late 2009 8 gb models. For pages that talk about features that only the 32 GB and 64 GB models support they use an asterisk after the late 2009 model name and clarify at the end, for example "iPhone 3GS and iPod touch (Late 2009)*: Supported languages for Voice Control and VoiceOver".. Further more what I get from the press release is that the 32 and 64 GB models are new sizes. And while the press release by itself would imply that the 8 GB is not a new model, it doesn't say that outright and with the numerous other pages at the primary source talking about a late 2009 GB I don't think that it can be used as an argument against. Also third generation appears to be the wrong term base on the above sources. PaleAqua (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I must remind everyone here that it is only Apple that decides the generations of its products, and not any other party (magazines, blogs, MSM, etc.) This has been the tradition of its Macintosh products - and it will continue with its other products like the iPod and iPhone. I'm seeing some editors using criterion to establish generations, such as features, speed, technical specifications, and so on. None of these should establish the generations. Only Apple can decide on this. Consistency must be established here; we do not have this if a consumer compares what he reads at apple.com with what's here on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that the 8gb 3rd gen touch is in fact prettymuch the same as the old one. It doesnt have the new internals like the iphone 3gs and its larger counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.36.107 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also bought a late 2009 8 GB iPod touch and understand what you are talking about for specs, but just because it is the same feature wise as the second generation model doesn't mean that it isn't a separate model. The solution as I see it is not to declare that there isn't a late 2009 8 gb iPod Touch but to find a source and state that it is identical (except for initial software load and rated battery life). PaleAqua (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple clearly stated that the 8GB has the internals of the 2nd gen iPod touch, whereas the 32 and 64GB models have the internals of the 3GS. --Aizuku (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify the model table by splitting out the late 2009 8gb. Seem like a reasonable approach? PaleAqua (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO in that case a clarification should to be made with the truly 3rd generation iPod touches with higher capacity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again if Apple calls the new ones (as mentioned above here) still section generation as it is is probably fine, maybe there could be a footnote could explain the difference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The model table show the difference, though perhaps something in the prose some where could be changed to state the difference more explicitly. Also I'm beginning to think that refering to the late 2009 models as either second or third generation confuses the situation and just the given name should be used. We also probably should add a note somewhere though that the late 2009 models are commonly referred as 3rd generation outside of Apple. PaleAqua (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting image for iPod touch (late 2009)

In terms of exterior design it looks no different than the 2nd gen iPod touch, so we only need a screenshot of the home screen to show the added Voice Memos app, and have it pasted on top of the image of 2nd gen iPod touch we already have. --Aizuku (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which you might be able to get from the iPhone article. Or just leave it. It's not worth having two images in the table, since we're walking a tightrope with fair use images anyway. (And by that I mean shhh.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the iPhone home screen has an icon for the camera, which the Touch does not have. :( Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Added the new icons to the image. hope it looks ok. Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that picture is supposed to show OS 2.0. Probably should be in different file. PaleAqua (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I placed it in a different file now. Fletcher (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, thanks. --Aizuku (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency / Style

Just been wondering about how consistent we should make the wording. For example using "models" for original, 2nd gen, and late 2009 vs "versions" for memory sizes. Also should the 1st generation be, "original", "first generation", "1st gen", or "1st generation"? Apple doesn't seem to use any qualifier and just refers to it as "iPod Touch", see [8]. Likewise with the second, looks like Apple uses "2nd generation" based on that link and also see the search results on their support page [9] when searching for "second generation". Finally should "Late 2009" as the proper name of a model always be in caps because of the proper noun requirements? It looks a little weird to say stuff like "The Late 2009 ...." but I think it may be right if I understand the style guidelines. PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• It seems we are consistently using "version" to refer to each flash memory variant, and "model" to refer to overall set of products released at the same time. Seems like a good idea.
• Your second question is trickier. IMHO we should treat "late 2009" as a compound adjective, which can be lowercase. I think that Apple tries to keep its product names simple, but is forced to come up with these strange names for technical support purposes. If you download the user manual, it actually refers to the "Fall 2009" models instead of Late 2009. There is a good chart here listing all the iPod names. It's quite arcane: apparently "generation" is to be lowercase, but the phase of the year (Early, Mid, Late) is always capitalized. Beyond that, I can't figure it out: iPod (Click Wheel) is capitalized but iPod (dock connector) is lowercase. It would take a certain degree of fanaticism to try to synchronize our capitalization of Apple's products exactly as the company prefers. We should capitalize what is unambiguously a proper noun, but these weird tech support names can be considered adjectives describing the primary name of the product. Fletcher (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was fairly consistant before with how version and model were used so I had just fixed up the rest. As to the second part, fortunately we only have to worry about the iPod touch names from that chart. Sounds like the models names are not really proper names and just designations which I believe would indicate lower case. As an aside I note that that chart doesn't list the 8 GB with a late 2009 designation. Also, I'm not arguing to keep our capitalization consistant with Apple's but that we should be self consistent. I'm leaning towards the opinion that we should use lower case for "late 2009". Per WP:ORDINAL, sounds like we should use "2nd generation" according to the last bullet of that policy "Proper names, formal numerical designations ... comply with common usage". Formal numerical designations is the bit I think that applies here. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would guess the 8 GB Touch was not listed with the late 2009 models because it was a continuation of the earlier 8 GB model. IIRC it wasn't upgraded so they could offer one version at a low price. Fletcher (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made the rest of the changes, using lower case for "late 2009", and consistently using 1st, 2nd and 3rd for generations, with lowercase "generation" and the word generation always fully spelled out. Still thinking that "original" might be better for 1st generation. PaleAqua (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Original" is what we use over at iPhone. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch or iPod touch?

There is not a great difference between the two possibilities, but the Apple website (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/) write the word "touch", without capital letter. We can see the word "touch" in officials Apple websites, and "Touch" in "fan" pages. Do we have to change the title of the article or is there a reason to write it with a capital letter? --Xiglofre (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia sticks to standard English capitalization. If it is a product name, the second and nth words must be capitalized. Only the first word can be left lowercase. Wikipedia does not allow a trademark owner to dictate capitalization (or lack of) like this. Groink (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing standard in English about capitalising product names, it's a convention not a rule. Wikipedia accepts the trademark 'iPod' without changing it to 'Ipod.' Perhaps we should use Ipod Touch?- -NotHugo- - (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you.--MGhostSoft (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

@NotHugu- Did you even read my statement? No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have said anything. Wikipedia standard allows the FIRST word to be lowercase. And THEN, Wikipedia's English standard requires the SECOND and nth word to be capitalized. Actually, the REAL namespace for this article IS IPod Touch. But to prove that Wikipedia does allow the first word to be lowercase, Wikipedia actually has a {{Lower case title}} parameter changing the title of the article. I just wish some people would do the research before commenting. But by all means, be bold and TRY to change it. Groink (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. There are absolutely no "standard English capitalisation" rules of product names. If there were, why wouldn't it be called the Ipod? What's so special about the first word that only it and no other words will not be capitalised? Furthermore, can you produce this English Wikipedia convention, rather than simply stating that there is one? Additionally, I don't see what MediaWiki's name-space limitations have to do with this discussion (not to mention the fact that there is no limitation on capitalisation of words past the first one). --71.167.228.75 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should be called iPod touch as that is what the product is called. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this. What is the process for formally proposing a name change? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you need to do a request for comment. If you don't figure it out I'll look into it in the next couple of days. The name change should also apply to the iPod nano and iPod shuffle. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves --Cybercobra (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move iPod Touch to iPod touch etc

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
IPod Touch → iPod touch — To match Apple's product naming scheme used in the trademarks and marketing for their various models of iPod. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• iPod Nano → iPod nano
• iPod Shuffle → iPod shuffle

Note that this should also apply to iPod Mini which I forgot to add initially. I've added the notification to that talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOS:TM is pretty clear on this, I see no reason to ignore it. Rehevkor ✉ 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How does that apply specifically in this case? The closest I can see in the guidelines is CamelCase which is described as a "judgement call". And besides Wikipedia looks pretty foolish that in the first sentence of the article it states "oh by the way this product is actually called something else". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Of note if the trademark was Touch or Nano then I can see it should be capitalised as per the MOS, but that isn't the trademark here. The trademark here is iPod touch and touch is the second word. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner," i.e. Title Case. I'm mostly going via the original consensus here, I don't see how the situation has changed enough to re-discuss/ignore it. Rehevkor ✉ 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the general rules for article titles and it states specifically that the title should be written in standard English not title case i.e. "The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in very rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The standard English for trademarks is title case, surely? "Funding of UNESCO Projects" is a bad example as it's not, as far as I can see, a trademark. Rehevkor ✉ 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked further and you are right that according to MOS:TM you should "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names." but MOS:PN seems to leave it ambiguous. The closest I can see is "Wikipedia does not seek to judge such rival claims, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." so if you can do a case sensitive web search that would settle that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure MOS:PN is really referring to the capitalisation, it doesn't effect someone's famililarity with the name. I feel MOS:TM would override it anyway. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on interpenetration, in my eyes the MOS is perfectly clear in this case. Rehevkor ✉ 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Rehevkor. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have a valid reason though. Reading both bits of the manual of style makes it clear that iPod touch is the "correct" title to use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the above and it being ambiguous I'm retracting the above comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why is the article about IKEA on the English Wikipedia permitted to use the all-caps form "IKEA" throughout, despite this also not being standard English usage for trademark names? (Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the trademark owner claims that IKEA is an acronym, since the trademark owner's views are apparently not relevant.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that the MOS relating to trademarks says that rules may be broken if they improve Wikipedia. I would say that it would very clearly improve Wikipedia to accurately capture the *actual* product name of the various iPods. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you'd have to bring that up at the IKEA article, because that's not relevant here (read WP:OTHERSTUFF). I see no reason to ignore the MOS in this case. Rehevkor ✉ 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to accept that you've interpreted the manual of style differently from me, but the manual of style isn't black and white on the issue as we've both interpreted it differently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (weak oppose) While there is the exception for the for the lowercase letter at the beginning in the manual of style it doesn't change that the rest should follow normal capitalization. PaleAqua (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS:TM seems fairly clear that we should "[f]ollow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"". I would consider the Touch to be a proper noun, as a product name, and thus capitalized. WP:CAPS does say we should only capitalize the first word of a title, but notes proper nouns as an exception. It's also somewhat helpful to title the article the same way we spell it in prose. Fletcher (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this reasoning that proper nouns have to be capitalised in English. Accord to the article you linked above they are usually capitalised but not always "In "English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, proper nouns are usually capitalized.". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS From WP:CAPS "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." which seems to leave it ambiguous again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is far less ambiguous than you think; the rule for capitalizing proper nouns seems to be one of the language's more consistent. The only exceptions I can find are that earth, sun, moon, and the four seasons are proper nouns but do not need to be capitalized (usually). Otherwise proper nouns are capitalized in standard English. It's possible a house style would override the standard rules, but our house style, per MOS:TM, seems to be that we do not. Fletcher (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I was doing some further research on the proper nouns and there are some proper nouns that aren't capitalised. i.e. The sun was shining when Bill paid for his house for 300 000 euros (500 000 dollars) in the autumn. So if Apple doesn't want to capitalise touch in iPod touch there is a definite precedent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've cited policy (which MOS:TM should override anyway), you've given precedent in English language (most of which are already established exceptions in WP:MOSCAPS, which MOS:TM should again override), but I've yet to see a proper reason why this change needs to be made. What is the reason to ignore MOS:TM in this case? What advantage comes from ignoring it and proper English? Rehevkor ✉ 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. In my opinion the reason for changing it is because iPod touch is the name given to the product by Apple. Additionally changing the title means we can get rid of the "(trademarked, marketed and stylized as iPod touch)" bit from the beginning of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This has always seemed ridiculous to me. Somehow it is okay to ignore "standard english" for the word iPod but it is not okay to ignore "standard english" for "iPod touch". It seems incredibly arbitrary to draw the line after the first word. And previous discussions on this just devolved into nonsense. Firstly the Wikipedia Manual of Style is a fluid document like all the rest of the site, that is applied patchily like all the rest of the rules on this site. So the arguments that we should do this solely because of the MoS (which I hasten to point out is just a guideline not a policy) are dubious. Also the argument that we should not follow Apple's style of capitalisation because that is helping their marketing is absolute nonsense. If we were really worried about not helping Apple's marketing department we would be deleting this article and removing all mention of the products from the site, not capitalising their product names slightly differently. I am so glad that people have proposed this nomination. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would respond that it's helpful to think about the reason we capitalize: to help set off a particular, named thing from a class of generic objects. With that in mind, iPod is capitalized, just in a weird way at the second letter. Words like iPhone, iMac and iPod are very distinguishable in a sentence, and it's not surprising this spelling has gained traction among the public. I don't think "touch" is the same way, and I doubt most people are aware Apple has its own idiosyncratic spelling. I certainly was not, until I read this thread, and I own one. (It doesn't help that the name of the product isn't even on the Touch! It's just called "iPod"). I find your other two arguments a bit specious: the fact that we don't have fixed rules doesn't mean we don't have any rules, and the fact that we don't need to help Apple's marketing doesn't mean we're trying to hurt Apple, so there's no reason we would have to remove our coverage of its products. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Certainly my first generation iPod touch is labelled that on the box. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment of note on Fletcher's comment that if the article title is changed that the prose will be wrong, that can easily be fixed by using the Find/Replace feature of a text editor, it'll take a couple of minutes to do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I realize that but please don't. Fletcher (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll only do that if the article is renamed, otherwise it would be silly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We capitalize proper nouns, even if the trademark holder prefers otherwise. Jafeluv (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why are we so keen to dismiss trademark holders' views as if they were totally irrelevant? If I spend x million USD on R&D bringing a product to market, you'd think the least I could do is choose whether to use lower or upper case letters in the name. Also, this alleged standard in English of capitalizing second and later words in proper nouns is, in my view, actually something more specific to US English than to English generally. Many writers of British English take the same approach as is normal in most other European languages (obviously excluding German) of capitalizing only the first word in a multi-word proper noun. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  We're "keen to dismiss" them because it inconveniences readers. There are plenty of trademark holders who insist on using a particular font when referring to their products as well; we likewise ignore that. As for the argument that title case means something different in UK and US English, it does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  Hello Mr Cunningham - I believe we've met before. Perhaps you can explain in concrete terms how it "inconveniences readers" for iPod touch to be spelt thus? If someone writes an article and references Wikipedia, thus causing them to spell iPod touch "iPod Touch", how is this helpful? Regarding your point about title case, it is correct that title case (as opposed to sentence case) means the same in British and American English. However, the usage of title case as compared to sentence case is clearly different. In newspaper headlines, for example, British English uses sentence case like most other European languages, whereas American English often uses title case. And interestingly on the Wikipedia page about proper nouns it is said, "Languages differ in whether most elements of multiword proper nouns are capitalised", and the article then goes on to cite an example of American English usage. I also read elsewhere an example of Transport for London using lower case in the names of Underground lines, eg, "Circle line", "Northern line", etc. 92.225.99.173 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Given Wikipedia follows the sentence case rules for its titles generally and given Northern line, Piccadilly line etc are proper nouns with a lower case second word that is a good piece of evidence in favour of changing it to iPod touch etc. (nice example by the way). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Northern line" is a peculiarity of the language, whereby it's only the "Northern" part which is really the title and the "line" simply accompanies it for the sake of clarity. It's a completely different situation to "iPod touch", where the latter word is an important part of the branding. The difference with newspapers is simply that British newspapers use sentence case for their titles, not that they treat title case differently.

I suppose you might say you were going on the Bakerloo to get somewhere, but that's only because Bakerloo doesn't have any other meaning other than as a tube line, but most of the others you do use line as part of the title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not British, but I can use Google: The Guardian uses title case for Northern Line, as does the BBC. The majority of Google results seem to favor title case, reflecting that title case is intuitive for most people. However, there is some support for your view at the tube's website (last paragraph here), but I think the above explanation is correct: "line" is not actually part of the formal name. The tube maps just refer to District, Northern, Picadilly, etc. The common noun "line" has to be added in prose to specify what is being discussed. Note also that the Tube capitalizes other unambiguously proper names, such as the London Underground or London Overground. You can see this here where it says things like "Operating under a new TfL London Rail Concession, London Overground services will also run on the extended East London line." A section heading on the same page is given as "Other National Rail services" reinforcing that proper nouns are capitalized, even where sentence case is used for titles. Fletcher (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And it inconveniences readers to have "iPod touch" because English speakers expect that proper nouns are presented in title case in prose, and breaking that rule for the sake of Apple's typographical whims makes it difficult for readers to tokenise a sentence. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed, especially as other forms of titles don't capitalise their second word. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Are you genuinely disputing the assertion that proper nouns are presented in title case in the English language? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear - I'm challenging the assertion: "and breaking that rule for the sake of Apple's typographical whims makes it difficult for readers to tokenise a sentence." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, people have written papers on the subject. I'm not sure exactly how you'd prove the counterargument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whit!? What has that article got to do with the "tokenizing" of words by human beings? Also, if you have a read through Apple's iPod touch pages <http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/>, do you find yourself struggling left, right and centre to tokenize the words on the page? I doubt it somehow. Language evolves - under the influence of both people and organizations - and it is rather pathetic if Wikipedia can't keep up with that. One final point - the Wikipedia MOS specifically states that the rules (even as you interpret them) may be broken if they improve Wikipedia. This is a case where we have a product which is utterly contemporary in nature and where, like nowhere else, we should be improving Wikipedia by reflecting modern-day reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethmac2000 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're arguing that the process by which humans tokenise sentences is fundamentally different from the one used in that paper, I would say that it's directly applicable. As for breaking the rules when it would improve the encyclopedia, it is very much disputed that breaking them here would be an improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that. That paper is about machine processing as far as I can see. I am glad that you at least concede that the rules can be broken if there is a reason to, so blind citing of the MOS will no longer be necessary. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, while "iPod touch" is the official trademark, using it that way looks unnatural in sentences and while some latitude must be made for breaking style conventions I don't see what it would buy us here. Consider the sentence fragment "...iPod touches upon...", depending one the rest of that sentence it could either be referring to an "iPod" or "iPod touches." While a bit contrived it shows the ambiguity from using lower case. I don't buy that just because that is the trademark that using it that way would improve the encyclopedia. Should we also set the word "touch" in a lighter weight type, after all that is how the trade mark is as well. Also the capitalization of headers is a different issue from capitalizing proper nouns. PaleAqua (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I like contrived examples. However, I dispute the relevance of your example in this case. There are many examples in English (and in many natural language) of situations where the same combination of words out of context can have more than one meaning. As human beings we are used to that. Perhaps your example is an argument for modifying the English language. It is not, in my view, an argument for not spelling iPod touch with the correct capitalization. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reply (and, for the benefit of others, conversations we've had off-wiki in days of yore) brings up another point: you'd prefer for us to drop the definite article when referring to "iPod" and "iPhone" as well, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally off-topic and irrelevant to this discussion. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"iPod touch" is not the correct capitalization; it is Apple's capitalization. You assume one corporation is the arbiter of the English language, but this is not the case. Language is flexible of course and sometimes we can choose to disobey the rules, but our house style is presently not to defer to the cutesy spellings companies use to market their products. Due to the ambiguity of "touch" also being a regular common noun and verb, breaking our rules in this case would make the article less readable. The only apparent benefit is to appease Apple and those poor souls caught in the RDF. Fletcher (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up the RDF is fairly unnecessary, I for one am perfectly capable of criticising Apple for the things that they actually do that are bad, such as the censorship on the AppStore. Just because I feel Apple's spelling in this case should be used - and that the MOS is ambiguous on it doesn't make me an Apple fanboi, and I think that assumption on anyone else isn't reasonable the majority of comments on both sides have been sensible and constructive IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for any offense (and to Kenneth to whom I directed the comment). I note I didn't go so far as to accuse anyone of fanboyism (while that could be inferred, I meant something a bit less extreme). But still, I don't see any benefit in doing it Apple's way, other than to do it Apple's way. And I don't think the guidelines are as ambiguous as you think. Fletcher (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). With regards to the guidelines I feel the guidelines are trying to prevent the Rolex article being called ROLEX or the Seven TV series article being called Se7en or something rather than Apple using a slightly unusual form of proper noun for the iPod touch that is used fairly often for words like summer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the spirit of the guidelines is that we don't change the English language to accommodate trademark holders, regardless of how unusual is the company's preferred spelling (allowing for a few exceptions noted at MOS:TM). For instance, "thirtysomething" and "yellow tail" are not very unusual words (like Se7en), yet the guideline cites them as examples that should be capitalized when used as proper nouns. While you are right there are a small number of exceptions to the rule that we capitalize proper nouns, the word "touch," and product names generally, are not considered exceptions. Note also the seasons are capitalized in some contexts, such as if you refer to a particular year - "I enrolled in Fall 2010". If Apple released an "iPod summer", I think we would capitalize the 's' because it is being used in a different context, and could create confusion with the season. Fletcher (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous assertion. Whilst you are perfectly entitled to your point of view, which I'm sure is shared by many others, it is rather far-fetched to contend that no-one who is not an obsessive Apple fan would like Wikipedia articles to reflect the naming conventions used by trademark holders. What if Apple decided to call the next iPod the iPod lkjadkjsdfkjhsjdh? Would we name the article something different on the basis that lkjadkjsdfkjhsjdh isn't a valid word in the English language? Or, rather more plausibly, what if they decided to call it the iPod xPert? Would we insist on calling it the iPod Xpert (or, knowing some of you, iPod Expert)? What about the iPod i3? Would we insist on renaming this to iPod Ithree? Where does this obsessive-compulsive blind adherence to rules and regulations end? (And please do respond on the specific examples I have given.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum is hardly productive. The rule is quite simple: unless there is overwhelming consensus to use an alternative format (such as for iSomething, as the format is over ten years old and has entered the public lexicon through Apple's continuous use of it) then we do not follow random typographical anomalies in trademarks. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that it isn't just a random, annoying gimmick from Apple's marketing wing. It's ignored as often as it is heeded in reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case it the article should be called "iPod Lkjadkjsdfkjhsjdh", and any common name used for it should be in the article. Though if Apple used such a name but almost all outside sources used a common name such as the "iPod Alphabet Soup" I could potentially see arguments for using that as the title assuming that the official name was cited at the beginning of the introduction. For "iPod xPert", seems to me that the exception would apply for both words and it should be "iPod xPert". "iPod i3" might be a more interesting case as it is possible one where it might make sense to use the leeway in the style guidelines, especially say if there was also an "iPod L3" or "iPod 13". PaleAqua (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So if Apple called the touch the iPod tOuch, we would let that spelling stand? Or is there some rule which differentiates xPert from tOuch? Following the MOS literally I think we would actually have to call the xPert the Xpert and the i3 the Ithree! Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't party to the discussions that created the guideline, but I suspect the justification for the exception for second letter capitalization is that some of these words (iPod, eBay) have gained considerable traction among the public. Remember, it is the public that shapes usage, not single companies (though companies sometimes can influence the public). Now, it's possible "tOuch" would gain similar traction, but I doubt it because the "ou" form a single sound and capitalizing one letter seems to interfere with pronunciation and readability. By contrast, "iTouch" likely would be accepted, most likely because the capital 'T' is placed at the beginning of a new syllable. Fletcher (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So traction amongst the public is the key decider is it? OK, so what if FedEx changes its name tomorrow to The Federal Express Parcel Deliverer but everyone keeps calling it FedEx for the next five years? Do we keep the article about the company with the name FedEx, or, more likely, do we change the name of the article to The Federal Express Parcel Deliverer but then reflect somewhere in the article the fact that many people continue to call the company FedEx? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually traction among the public is the criteria, see Burma which is still called Burma even though it should be Myanmar. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would posit that the retention of the name Burma for the Myanmar article is more political than anything related to style. And there is by no means a concensus for that name anyway, as is evidenced by the fact that the article name is locked. My point was: if a company decides to rebrand itself under a new name, but most people keep using the old name for a year or two, should we also keep the old name, or should we use the new, correct name? For example, General Motors renames itself to Poweron Cars but everyone keeps calling it GM? Do we seriously keep the article at General Motors and then only mention in the body text, "now officially known as Poweron Cars"? I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to be correct, not to simply reflect what the man on the street says or thinks. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "correct" article title is that which is most recognizable to a general audience, as reflected in reliable sources. One may expect reliable sources, and the public in general, to accede to a company's rebranding, but if there is for some reason a dispute, we would continue to use the most widely known name. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More likely it would be kept as FedEx or Federal Express with that unusual title noted in the lede. Note that FedEx is technically FedEx Corporation but the article is simply titled FedEx, as that is how they are known. WP:TITLE lists some criteria for naming articles and does not require the owner's formal title to be used, though in many cases the formal name and popular name will coincide well enough. However if the owner insists on an unwieldy title that is not adopted by the public or reliable sources, the guidelines suggest we would use a more common and recognizable name. It seems like hairsplitting but keep in mind the article title refers to the topic of our Wikipedia article. It is not a quotation of a name used by some other organization (WP:PRECISION). Fletcher (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the above responses, except to note that MOS:TM easily answers Kenneth's questions, if he would read it. There is no requirement for the article title to be an existing English word, and there are exceptions noted for CamelCase and words that are capitalized at the second letter. Fletcher (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the MOS, disagree with its contents on this topic, think that the best way of getting it changed is through a bottom-up/grassroots approach, but think that all that is irrelevant anyway since the MOS provides specific cases where the rules may be broken. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not one of those cases, however. I see no benefit in breaking the rules of English and our own guideline. Fletcher (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Firmware version is now 3.1.3

3.1.3 (7E18) to be exact. Instead of 3.1.2 (7D11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyrol (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Headphones

The headphones included with the iPod Touch 2G never came with a remote/mic. The iPod Touch 3G does, however. Could the caption for the headphone picture be changed to the iPod Touch 3G? --Dialexio (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 DoneHereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Move?

If the iPod Touch is trademarked and stylized as "iPod touch", shouldn't it be moved to "iPod touch"? JackSlice (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind JackSlice (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

microphone support in iPod touch 8GB

"The 8 GB version is a reissue of the 2nd generation iPod touch hardware, includes OS version 3.x, but does not include support for Voice Control or the remote earphones with microphone.[10]"

Actually iPod touch 8GB supports voice memos: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/voice-memos.html. Therefore it should support microphone. 84.223.98.126 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Luca V. (Apr. 2, 2010)

Look at the comparison down on the bottom of that page. Only the 32 and 64GB are noted as having Voice Control and earphones with the remote mic. Fletcher (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but I believe nothing prevents to buy the earphones with mic and plug the into the 8GB ... as long as the iPod touch 8GB has a mic input. That is the point. Maybe it is possible to find out somedy that tried to do that already. 84.223.98.126 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Luca

I just tried it with my 8GB (OS 3.1.2) and the voice memo's do indeed work when you use a headphone jack mic DdDave (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture Caption

The main picture's caption says it's a second generation iPod touch but it's actually a late 2009 (picture name, Voice Control app).  — [Unsigned comment added by Ummwat (talk • contribs) 25 April 2010 02:49 (UTC).]

I changed it. You're right, it is the late 2009. We were considering the late 2009 as an update to the 2nd generation, rather than a new generation. Apple had not been calling it a 3rd gen which left open the door they might release a new Touch they did call 3rd gen. Recently, however, they've revised some of their support pages calling this model a 3rd gen, which clarifies things a bit. Fletcher (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OS 4.0, will it cost touch users again for an update to a new OS version?

Will it? Cs302b (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. See top of this page for proof. Ryankiefer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming of iOS

It seemed intuitive to me that we would stop referring to the iPhone OS now that it has been renamed iOS. Evidently at least one user thinks we should continue referring to earlier versions as iPhone OS, and only refer to version 4 and later as iOS. But I think this will prove confusing to future readers and will require repeated clarifications to be made. I notice over at iOS (Apple) they are doing it the way I suggest, and only refer to iPhone OS where it is necessary to clarify the name change. Similarly, at present the words "iPhone OS" do not even appear in the iPad article (except a few buried in citations). Naming the OS after the iPhone was already confusing with respect to the iPad and Touch, so I think we should take advantage of this change. Fletcher (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to discuss the issue of the iOS nomenclature on the Talk:iOS (Apple) instead. - oahiyeel ^talk 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Fletcher (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 2nd gen Mark 2

Apple still call the new iPod touch the 2nd gen, so shouldn't we do the same?

That is probably reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple has begun referring to the 16GB and 32GB models as the iPod Touch 3G:. See the bottom of this page: [10]. --Sam (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because the 8GB iPod touch actually didn't get a ram or processor upgrade. It's largely still the same as the 2nd gen. The 32GB and 64GB did and that's why they get the full iOS4 update that the iPhone 3GS gets and the 8 gig gets the reduced update that the iPhone 3G gets. - 24.23.16.106 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I reverted vandalism here and here. How is it that an article with ≈247 watchers, can have vandalism stay on it for ≈half an hour?. Not chastising, just wondering! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have work to do :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it's 4 AM+ here! >:-Þ --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimum OS to Sync Shouldn't Include Ubuntu Because it is Unofficially Supported

I don't think the Minimum OS to Sync column in the models section should include Ubuntu because it is not officially supported by Apple, and is not the only Linux distro. Also you could get support for Ubuntu before 10.04 you just had to install libimobiledevice. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would take it one step further and boldly say that the article should only mention Macintosh and Windows OS', as the documentation at the Apple site doesn't mention other OS'. The table should not be endorsing non-Apple tested products like the linux product. Groink (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Capabilities

Did someone notice that the ipod touch 3g has a chip (BCM4329FKUBG) capable of receiving/transmitting fm radio and connecting to a/b/g/n wireless?

http://www.broadcom.com/products/Bluetooth/Bluetooth-RF-Silicon-and-Software-Solutions/BCM4329 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr3v3tt3 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a 3rd generation iPod touch! Apple said it themselves!

[11]

Scroll to the bottom of the page to see the devices affected for the new iPhone OS 4.0. It clearly says "3rd generation" and plus it's on Apple's website! 69.255.16.132 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This support page also notes it as the third generation. (Oddly if you click on the 3rd-gen link on that page, the specs page is still labeled Late 2009). Also note: it appears Apple does NOT consider the 8GB model part of the 3rd generation. This makes sense as it was just a lower priced continuation of the 2G model. Perhaps the "Models" table in our article should be restructured. Fletcher (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The third generation is the same as Late 2009. It includes only the larger storage capacity units, as the 8GB is essentially to 2G iPod Touch with iPhone OS 3.0. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a definitive list of all iPods http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1353 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.203.227 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Apple specifically states 3rd gen only has 32GB and 64GB models: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP570 - oahiyeel ^talk 05:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw that picture during from the keynote. Looks knowledge base article was updated to say 3rd generation, used to say (Late 2009), and in the Google and Bing caches still show Late 2009 at least at the time of this comment. Sounds like Apple is cleaning up the naming convention confusion, probably to avoid confusion over which models can run iPhone OS 4.0. As an aside, http://support.apple.com/kb/SP571 still uses the "Late 2009" term. Seems reasonable to switch the article back to use 3rd generation with a note at some point mentioning the late 2009 label. List of iPhone OS devices probably needs to be updated as well in light of this. PaleAqua (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apple made it clear that there is NO Ipod Touch 3G 8GB. it was simply a mistake that the press took the new release as a completely new model. Source: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1353 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.102.96 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OS 4.0 not for 1st gen

iOS 4 is not available for the 1st generation iPod Touch. Shouldn't this be reflected on the page, as well as on the iOS page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.141.248 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed in the sidebar info box. Tengilorg (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Trademarked, marketed, and stylized as iPod touch"

A user has begun edit warring over the phrasing that was in the intro sentence. Does anyone recall if that phrasing was the consensus result after discussions about the spelling? Should we keep it? Fletcher (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

furthermore, what would past precedent tell us about this particular phrase? I'm glad you brought this up for discussion, as repeatedly reverting each other does no one any good. riffic (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't care that much - though its in all the other iPod articles. Maybe it could be mentioned along with iTouch further down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's no original research involved, however I really wish you'd start that request for comment beforehand, as you mentioned on your talk page. riffic (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationalization for the descriptive notice can be found here btw. Gauge the consensus as you'd like. riffic (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up iTouch without starting an RFC, it isn't fair. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative

How do you turn your screen negative? 174.20.186.228 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Go to Settings -- Accessibility and turn the White On Black option to ON. It turns the screen negative. NOTE: This makes your photos in the negative as well. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pic of iTouch 1G

why is there no picture of the iPod touch 1G? They are easy to find —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joinuseveryweek (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

iPod touch wordmark gone?

Why is the wordmark (the one in Myriad Pro font) gone? iPad, iPod nano, iPod shuffle and iPhone has the wordmark. I don't see the point of it. tablo (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a wordmark in the infobox as of now. Perhaps it had been temporarily lost in the course of intense editing? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seperate iPod touch models into full-sized articles

The page itself will be too filled up if you have it stay like this. Even now, it's too messy and just too small compared to the iPhone articles

Let's do what they did with the iPhone articles (I created the iPhone 3GS article, not the best but better than this and hugely contributed to the iPhone 4 article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinxtreme (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally concur. Groink (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the iPod touch models different enough to necessitate their own article? Can you envision a Wiki article called iPod Touch (1st Generation)? Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Previous iPod Touch Versions and iPod Touch - This way you could keep the past riffraff off of the newest one's page, and if someone wants to know about past Touch versions they can deal with the slightly lessened riffraff on that page. Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea with the page for previous models and the main iPod Touch page only for the newest model is a good one. Perhaps wait until 4th Generation is released before making the move? At the moment this article is too cluttered! ~Animationsun~ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I find that the idea of a page for previous models a bit unneutral. The iPod touch page should be the main page serving as the page where it introduces the iPod touch is a line of multimedia players or something like that. Then follow general structure of the iPhone article (exclude or heavily modify some partsl like screen and battery, those are way too long on the iPhone page) The original iPod touch article's name should be something like iPod touch (original). The 2nd generation and 3rd generation well iPod touch (2nd generation) and iPod touch (3rd generation). I can envision that. Then provide details of History like where and when it was Unvieled, release and dates, and if possible, development information. Also the new features it provides in through but short descriptions. Also reception like reviews and all that. Does anybody think that is a good idea?

Justinxtreme (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vibrate Feature?

I noticed that LANewsMonitor.com mentioned the newest generation iPod touch had a vibrate feature. On the website it said,

"As mentioned on Apple’s website, it seems that iPod Touch 4G will be come equipped with vibrating functionality. The website specially mentions that when a user begins a FaceTime call, the recipient of the invitation will get a text notice and will also receive a “vibrating alert”."

Any way to verify this, and possibly add the tidbit to the new iPod specs? I can't find any mention of a vibrate feature, but then again, it's 1:53 AM CDT. ;)

L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 06:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found confirmation against that here. Ffrogman (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Non Free image

I recently reinserted an image and stated that the image was not non-free. After a bit of looking around, it was indeed non-free so I am stating this for the record, just in case any one rides my butt about it. Yet I still believe that the image is fine where it was since it was already being used in the info box.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's partly why I removed it in the first place. There's no need to have it on the page twice. I'm fine with it being used in the infobox for another few days. There are reports of these now getting into user's hands, so we can't claim fair-use anymore. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone Vandalized the title

Just thought I should let a wiki discusser know is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmcruiser (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)