Talk:Ford Sync

3 Versions

There have been three versions of Sync to date (Sync, released in '07; Sync 2, released '08; Sync 3, released '09). We should have three headings or something that, at the very least, list the new/improved features. Mbslrm (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the problems with this is that Ford itself has no idea what is fixed in the versions. They farm that out and never publish a list of changes. I was able to find this, FJ5T-14D544-AB

Bluetooth© Connectivity Improvements:
Enhanced Bluetooth phone connection stability
Enabled track information to be displayed for Bluetooth-streamed media including metadata such as song title, artist name and album title
More robust Message Access Profile (MAP) functionality to handle SMS reception and Text2Speach output
Media Connectivity Improvements:
Improved media connectivity for USB-equipped Apple devices, as well as streamlined device initialization and authentication process
Previous USB or Bluetooth media source playback now resumed after ignition cycle
AppLink Functionality Improvements:
Better AppLink customer experience with more robust features and reliable functionality 

For the latest version on Gen1, but the problem is Ford will neither confirm or deny any of this information. Ford also does not admit publically to major issues with the system, only privately for each user. The forums seem to be the only place that the data can be crowd-verified. I suspect Programmers from Microsoft and Ford both use the form and leak technical information like the piece above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyderr (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

System Costs

It is totally ridiculous to think that the hardware costs of this system would be $30. An OEM quality simple car radio costs more to produce than that. The cost for the box is more like in the 3 lower digit range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.169.87 (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Recording of conversations section

I don't understand why this merits inclusion. There are no references cited to indicate that this is noteworthy. I was not able to turn up any articles doing a few basic internet searches.

Electronic systems regularly record information you give them (Google, Bing and OnStar being three examples) in order to fulfill a request. This is not a new or novel. In the Terms and Conditions Ford is explaining what must happen in order to respond to user requests.

Since there are no citations and I can't find any articles that point out a significant consumer controversy regarding this aspect of SYNC, I'm removing the section since in its present form it seems to be original research. Ch Th Jo (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Recording of Conversations removed again. This topic in particular has been singled out from the SYNC Terms and Conditions. Why? What respected, third party sources support highlighting this particular aspect of the Terms and Conditions? Additionally, there is no commentary of any kind, just a cut and paste from the terms and conditions, which itself is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Without third party citations, it is an editor's opinion that this is noteworthy and thus original research. Let's see some articles from respected sources that demonstrate that this particular aspect of the Terms and Conditions is unusual, controversial or in some way noteworthy. At least one editor thinks this is important, but unless we can find some citations that demonstrate that this aspect of the SYNC Terms and Conditions is actually is being discussed and documented by respected sources, it should not be included in the article. I am unable to find any such citations. Ch Th Jo (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:N, "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article," and, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list." There are no notability requirements for information included within the article itself. The "Recording of Conversations" information is relevant to the subject of the article, and thus as worthy of inclusion as much of the rest of the information in it (which is also not backed up by reputable third-party sources). As for the claim that "Recording of Conversations" section is original research, WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF allow primary and self-published sources, within limits that the information included in this section meets. -- noosphere 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of lists or facts per WP:NOT. By simply reproducing a section of the Terms and Conditions without any critical commentary, you are simply listing facts. Why is this particular section of the Terms and Conditions significant? Why are you including this information? What third party sources back up your argument? You have not made any effort to explain why this is significant, so I am removing the section. Ch Th Jo (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Ch Th Jo. Without a third party source, it is clearly original research to highlight a particular section from the Terms and Conditions. I think WP:UNDUE is what really applies here, if this is a major issue, surely some source has commented on it. --Leivick (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your objections and those of Ch Th Jo equally apply to much of the rest of the information in this article. The "Vehicles offering SYNC" section is just a list of facts (without a single supporting citation, reputable or otherwise). The entire "Sync Versions" section is just a list of facts. The "Applications" section is just a list of facts. The "Features" section is just a list of facts (with but a single citation). There is no commentary in these sections. They are just lists of facts. Why are they there? There been no attempt to justify their inclusion. As for the criticism that the that the "Recording of Conversations" section is insignificant, please show me how the fact that, for instance, the SYNC "will play personal ring tones assigned to identify specific callers" is any more significant. What reputable source is the significance of this factoid from the "Features" section attributed to? The same question could be asked about much of the rest of the contents of this article. Furthermore, as per Leivick's criticism, the content of these sections is mostly uncited, and when they are cited they're mostly citations from Microsoft documentation and the like. These are no better sources than those of the "Recording of Conversations" section, which belongs in this article no less than the rest. -- noosphere 03:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Your objections and those of Ch Th Jo equally apply to much of the rest of the information in this article." Yes, however those sections are making a reasonable attempt to catalogue the entire range and are not selectively highlighting one feature out of context of the rest. You however are highlighting one particular section of the Terms and Conditions. I think it is reasonable for a reader to come to this article and see a list and description of the features, however I can not formulate an argument for selectively picking one section of the terms and conditions and highlighting it. Your source supports a simple statement like "Users of the SYNC system are subject to Terms and Conditions of use." but that's it. You now have two editors who do not agree with your logic. Please make one last attempt to explain why you think it is appropriate to highlight one particular part of the Terms and Conditions that is not supported by a third party source. Its a critical consideration that so far in the discussion you have failed to address after repeated requests. Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Edit: Please also address Leivick's statement that your edit does not comply with WP:UNDUE. Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. After thinking about this some more, and re-reading WP:UNDUE, I agree that giving prominence to this particular section of SYNC's Terms and Conditions violates WP:UNDUE. I'll erase the "Recording of Conversations" section from the article. -- noosphere 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The next Sync version

According http://cmaxchat.com/?p=4567 Ford will base the next-generation Sync software on Blackberrry’s QNX.

(Jprozas2 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC))

Non-free content

What WP:NFC does the tag from April 2012 pertain to, T3dkjn89q00vl02Cxp1kqs3x7 ? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)