Talk:IPhone

Conflicting Information

I have noticed that the following two statements conflict with each other. This should probably be rectified to avoid any confusion.

Statement #1: The operating system takes up about 700 MB of the device's total 4 or 8 GB storage.[8]

Statement #2: As well, the 8 GB iPhone has been commonly noted[1] to list only 7.3 GB of disk space available, causing a rumor that the version of Mac OS X for the iPhone was 700mb. After further investigation, a df revealed that the size of the OS partition to be 300MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.191.18 (talk) 09:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Video from the headset jack?

The Hardware>Audio section says that you can get video out of the headset jack with a "three way jack plug." This seems very unlikely to me, because they would either have to squeeze at least five electrical contacts into the jack or they would have to re-purpose the microphone contact. In addition, this capability would be unnecessary because you can get composite or component video and audio out of the dock connector using adapters sold at the Apple store. Plus, the Apple store does not sell this headset to video adapter, which makes me doubt its existence. I will probably delete that statement unless someone corrects me.Fluoborate (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been deleted, but here's a source for the fact that there's no video out of the headset jack: [1]. Enobeno (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What about criticisms?

Why is thre no section detailing the many various criticisms users and tech reviewers have regarding this product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.210.5 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because criticism sections are bad. Much work was done to eliminate the criticism sections that existed previously. The cricisms themselves still exist in the article, but only where appropriate. For example, the iPhone camera is not capable of video, which is mentioned when describing the camera feature. -- Atama^chat 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except of course, that there is precious little criticism anywhere in the article. There are statements made that "iPhone" doesn't do this or that, but nowhere does it say why that might be a bad thing or even bring up the fact that, yes, other devices do those things. Or how about the quotes from respected computer writers like David Pogue who make it clear that, as a device, iPhone is neat, but as an actual phone, it is sorely lacking? You don't want a criticsm section (which are discouraged but not called "bad" anywhere in the WP you linked to), then fine. But don't pretend that this article is already NPOV. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean a statement like...

David Pogue of The New York Times and Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal both tested the iPhone for two weeks and found learning to use it initially difficult, although eventually usable. Pogue stated use was "frustrating" at first, but "once you stop stressing about each individual letter and just plow ahead, speed and accuracy pick up considerably." After five days of use, Mossberg "was able to type on it as quickly and accurately as he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years," and considered the keyboard a "nonissue." Both found that the typo-correcting feature of the iPhone was the key to using the virtual keyboard successfully.[32][48]

...which is already in the article? -- Atama^chat 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, boys and girls, that Wikipedia is not entirely a Web 2.0 site as most people want to believe. Articles do NOT need to be fair and balanced. And, articles do not need to cover EVERY concern about a device. Maybe something political or religious should be balanced, but not certainly a piece of electronics. Also, that NPOV comment by anon is totally off-base, as inclusion cannot be used as a form of argument under Wikipedia. Rather than saying, "Well, so-and-so information is included...", it is better to fix those other errors. Groink (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

iPhone current capabilities

• Regarding Groink's edit on 03:23, January 16, 2008, he made the comment (while reversing some of my edits) "Encyclopedia articles are based purely on factual information available today, the iPhone can/cannot do X. "currently" assumes it will change someday - something an encyclopedia does not do.)"

--Ok, point taken, I'll accept that "currently" shouldn't be used. However "can't" and "doesn't" imply 2 different things. "Can't" implies it never could, never will be able to. Ok, this iPhone will never display 3D holograms, but MMS, that's a simple software change and certainly could happen someday. It's fine to say the iPhone "doesn't" do some things. To say it "can't" requires a higher standard.

--Also, you removed my statement about not doing video recording out of the box. I think that's wrong. There are programs out there right now that I've seen documented on engadget.com showing the iPhone doing video recording. So the iPhone does do video recording, right now. Just not out of the box.

--I'm going to wait a day or 2 then add SOME of my edits back in unless there's some replies here (I won't add back in "currently"). And I'll be changing "can't" to "doesn't" where I think it's appropriate.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your point about the difference between "can't" and "doesn't" is valid. I'd be interesting to see a link verifying that the iPhone can do video, both for this article and for my own curiosity. -- Atama^chat 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My previous edit had nothing to do with "can't" and "doesn't". It had everything to do with the use of the word "currently". For example, "The iPhone currently runs on 1.1.3." to me is a waste. Saying "The iPhone runs on 1.1.3." is perfectly fine. It is not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to keep reminding people that something is temporary or may change some day. Encyclopedias are not concerned about what will happen tomorrow. Encyclopedias are snap shots of today - especially Wikipedia. That's my foundation. Groink (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine. I will try to remember not to say "currently". And apparently you have no objection about whether I say "can't" or "doesn't". Ok.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not address "hacks", period. That's why, in the case of voice recordings, it is not an officially supported feature. This is why out-of-the-box is assumed in ALL Wikipedia articles - not just the iPhone and iPod touch articles. To start adding words that doesn't add any more meaning to the article is a waste. It is like me telling someone, "I'm at the corner of 3rd and Main Street. I'm currently standing on two of my feet, as I currently have only two feet, but that can change some day in the case I chop one of them off..." We should allow readers to assume to a certain extent. And it is not the responsibility of us editors to make sure that the readers know that there are officially supported features, and then there are hacks. If we need to keep telling readers that, "Remember now, although hackers have developed products that allow the iPhone to whistle Dixie and solve the quadratic formula, the features we discuss on Wikipedia are out-of-the-box." is on the edge of insulting both the reader and the encyclopedia concept itself. Groink (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, really? Is this a Wiki policy? Can you please refer me to the appropriate page? There are articles in Wiki on breaking DRM, overclocking your CPU, adjusting your car's engine parameters outside of manufacturer recommendations to speed it up, hacking products to behave differently (see CueCat, etc), etc. All these things are hacks. Why would an encyclopedia not mention a hack? Just because some vendor doesn't bless the behavior?

--Jason C.K. (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion is not a valid form of an argument on Wikipedia, per WP:INN (out of date, but it still holds true in many arguments on Wikipedia.) Saying that X and Y exist does not mean that Z should therefore exist. It means that X and Y are also wrong. It is not a Wikipedia I'm enforcing, but rather I'm taking the words of Wikipedia founder Jim Wales where his vision of Wikipedia is equal to an actual encyclopedia. I'm basically enforcing the norms you find in an encylopedia, and applying it to Wikipedia. Just because you can change the content of an article on a minute-by-minute basis doesn't mean we should therefore write articles in that same manner. There are no on-line sources that define everything there is to do with an encyclopedia, but in my 30+ years reading them for school and enjoyment, I have a good idea on what Jim's ideas are regarding issues like this. Groink (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is this an encyclopedia of what actually exists out there and things people actually do, or is it some marketing organization that only talks about the things of which "certain people" (like vendors) approve? So far all you've offered is your "feeling" that encyclopedias shouldn't talk about hacks. I don't buy that. So you're asserting anything in Wiki that talks about the fact that that people mod their home game consoles to play unauthorized games should be removed, as well as articles about breaking DRM, overclocking CPUs, and crazy engine modifications? That seems ridiculous. We don't talk about existing, even popular items, just because some vendor doesn't like them?

--Jason C.K. (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point that Groink is making is that (for example) in the article on CPUs, you don't have information about overclocking. Overclocking has its own article instead. Maybe some day there could be an article about iPhone hacks, or a few specific articles on noteworthy hacks or third-party programs for the iPhone. I don't know about a specific policy on not including hacks, but do please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should focus on what the iPhone can do now, not what it might do by repeating "this is what the iPhone does for now" throughout the article. -- Atama^chat 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what Groink is saying at all. He isn't talking about what's integrated into an article vs. split-out. He says "Encyclopedias do not address "hacks", period." Apparently in his view Wiki shouldn't talk about CPU overclocking at all. Or breaking DRM, or modding game consoles, or car engines, etc. And I'd reject anyway the notion that you can only talk about a subject (like hacks) when there's enough material for a separate article. Which, in the case of the iPhone, there actually is enough material for a separate article, I'm just not interested in writing that much. But thousands of people (at the least) are jailbreaking their iPhones, unlocking them, writing their own apps, etc. And there are at the least hundreds and hundreds of apps out there, some of them quite interesting & popular. Talking about existing, even popular, hacks has nothing to do with crystal ball. These things have been around for a while. "we should focus on what the iPhone can do now" Yes, and what it can do right now, if you're into modding it, is be used on non-AT&T networks, and have 3rd party apps installed, etc, etc.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems you're right, and I'd agree that Groink is wrong, and reluctantly suggest that his opinion of what he thinks that Jim Wales might think about the matter is irrelevant. While we are making an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and saying that something should not be included because Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have it is an even worse argument than WP:INN. Talking about hacks isn't against policy whether Groink likes it or not, and while inclusion isn't an indicator of notability, if hacks are common in Wikipedia and uncontroversial then the consensus of the community seems to be that they're okay.

My talking about Crystal was in reference to things that the iPhone can't do yet at all, but we hope will be able to do in the future, not things that it can do with 3rd party hacks. I don't really mind a mention somewhere about how iPhone capabilities can be enhanced with hacks, if it doesn't violate NPOV (which shouldn't be hard), but I think it's just poor writing to keep reinforcing the point over and over by stressing that everything it doesn't do is only a restriction "out of the box". It makes the article clunky to read. -- Atama^chat 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, regarding Crystal Ball, I didn't, nor do I intend to, talk about what I wish it could one day do. As for writing quality of how much to say about out-of-the-box and where & how to say it...well, I'll introduce facts I think are worthy to mention, and if they're seen as worthy facts but would be better organized differently...feel free to re-edit! I may not have a good idea on how to write it, but in general I'd agree, it's probably better to lump together in specific spots all the things it DOESN'T do (out of box), and then lump together in other spots mentions that it CAN do those things (if you hack it). I'm guessing that would be easier to read that way.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My last word on this matter. You can mention jailbreaking for historical purposes, but you just can't tell people HOW to do it, as some editors have attempted to do in the past. You can point people to places so they can learn how to do it by use of the external links section. But, you just can't assume jailbreaking is a regular thing to do to the device throughout the article, as I indicated earlier because that's what you tried to pull with the out-of-the-box blurb. The other articles are consistent with what I've said - they do mention CPU overclocking and such, but they don't go into details on how to do it. And, when they discuss things like Microsoft Windows XP, they don't write the entire article assuming the person hacked it (ex: "Installing service pack 3 might break your WGA hack" or "only works on a Windows XP installation that is in factory condition" shouldn't have to be mentioned.) If you guys really want to out-do all the other web sites and start getting into jailbreaking and hacking in detail, I suggest creating a new article on the Wikibooks site and pour your technical guts out there. Groink (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, this can be your last word, if you like. But it's not the final word. This is a community based on consensus. You seem to be assuming a LOT of things about me based on nothing. Where did I ever imply I wanted to pour out details on how to jailbreak, unlock, etc? I don't even know how, in fact, I just know there's a lot of people doing it. And you use language like "what you tried to pull". Excuse me? What was I trying to "pull"? I thought I was making a worthwhile clarification of what the iPhone can and cannot CURRENTLY do (it CAN currently record video...just not out of the box). Do you assume some kind of bad faith on my part? Do you think I have some nefarious hidden agenda and this was the first step in my master plan? Do I have some campaign I'm not aware of to misinform people about out-of-the-box vs not? I certainly did not assume that we can blithely talk about non-out-of-the-box function without being clear. And I was clear. I very carefully said that video and other features were not out-of-the-box abilities.

-- As for discussing hacks throughout the article...I went to where I thought statements should be clarified, and I clarified them. Should it be organized differently? Maybe. Maybe I have no better ideas on how to organize it. Maybe I'm too lazy. Maybe I don't want to re-org the article just to have people jump all over me & undo all my work. Whatever. If a fact is worthy to include, then it's worthy, even if it would be "better" to organize differently. And "better" itself is a debatable term. Not everyone thinks the same way about article organization. If you don't like statements about hacks peppered in the article, you are free to IMPROVE the article by writing it up differently, consolidating that info, etc. But it's not ok to unilaterally decide that certain topics can never be mentioned, or that they cannot be entered at all if you don't like the organization of how they're entered. I will put what I think is appropriate, where I think it's appropriate. If you'd like to IMPROVE and change that (not merely delete because you dislike it), go right ahead. If I or anyone don't like your edits, we'll speak up (though I suspect I won't mind at all).

-- Or if you'd like to challenge the worthiness of including some fact, go right ahead and start a discussion about it. If you think hacked-video-recording is too trivial to mention, start a discussion. But do not delete the fact ONLY because you don't like WHERE it was placed in the article, or ONLY because you think hacks categorically are wrong to mention. A lot of people hack...their iPhones, their PS/2, their CPU, their car, etc. We're not talking about a topic that only 2-3 people worldwide are into.

--Jason C.K. (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

I apologize if this is considered irrelevant, but is it at all worth mentioning Blendtec grinding an iPhone to mere dust and selling its remains on ebay? And have their been any viruses of any kind developed for the iPhone, and I do the support the idea that there should be a stronger balance of view on the article. If the author's not inclined to add criticisms to his article, allow someone to insert valid, rational, verifiable counterpoints. That's the wiki in Wikipedia, isn't it?

-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Blendtec - No. This is just self-promotion of a company or product. So someone is able to grind an iPhone to powder.
• Viruses - none so far.
• Wiki - Actually, wiki just means you can develop content on-the-fly. As for criticism, there's a lot of it in this article already. Did you even read it? Wikipedia does not recommend creating a section just for criticism. Instead, they recommend integrating these points into the existing sections, and let the content in the sections maintain the balance. But remember that many criticism points usually end up being POV. And the source that's making the criticism should be credible as well. Groink (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first trojan is out in the wild,[2] but the current one only infects people that modify the security of their phone so they can install third party apps. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a Trojan, not a virus. There's a huge difference, you have to install this program yourself to get it, it looks like you can't be "infected" by it. -- Atama^chat 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which would be why I said it was a trojan and did not say that it was a virus. Heck, I even linked to the article. As far as the use of infect... Whether one downloads it on one's own accord or has it inflicted upon your computer, the terminology is the same. The kid said it was a patch in preparation for 1.1.3, but instead it replaced files in the \bin with files that displayed the word "shoe" on the screen. Not exactly the most malicious of things a trojan can do, but it certainly is an "infection". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Trojan War? Someone had to open the door and bring the bridge down in order for the Trojan horse to come across. And once inside, all hell broke loose! That's the root meaning of the word trojan when used in technology. And Atama is correct: a trojan is not an infection. Even though a person unknowingly lets a program into his system, it doesn't "infect" the system. Like the Trojan war, it just "takes over" the system without having to feed off of any resource or grow/multiply in numbers with time. Whereas a the root meaning of a virus is that the virus integrates itself into the system. That's what an infection is - it increases in strength and multiplies as it feeds off the resources of the system, and eventually destroys the system. Groink (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

YouTube video conversion

The article states that YouTube was going to have all of their videos converted to an iPhone-compatible format by the third quarter of 2007. Well the third quarter has come and gone so does anyone know if YouTube has indeed finished their conversion of their videos or is it still an ongoing process? Also, the wording in this article needs to be carefully reviewed because there are many proposed "possibilities" and "potential future features" that may be introduced or may have already been introduced; care should be taken to make sure that the article remains up-to-date as much and as quickly as possible. Rajrajmarley (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may have already done it. It's just that they didn't announce it. Also, that statement you read is un-cited, so it could very well be original research on the part of the editor who wrote it. Unless the statement is cited, don't trust it! Since you're a registered user, you can do the research and make the additions/edits here. As for the wording, I talked about that a few days ago in this very talk page. And I agree with you 100-percent - you CANNOT be using words that may lead to someone believing that although a feature is not available today, it will be available tomorrow. Groink (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ iPhone Category

A solution for the jailbreak links problem might be to simply add a link to the iPhone category on DMOZ, which is pretty complete.

http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Systems/Handhelds/Smartphones/iPhone/

The DMOZ category has a link to the wikipedia iPhone article.

~kara

204.210.204.190 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it to external links! DMOZ is a great resource!

Frogfork (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)