Talk:iPhone/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

False advertising

I just want to say as an owner of the iPhone, NOTHING on it operates as fast as the ads portray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.81.65 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Try a hard reboot. Fixed most of my lag. Unfortunately I have to reboot every night. Maybe I can cron it? :) -- Dgcaste (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DMCA

The article states that the restriction of running third-party apps not vetted by Apple "can be overcome by 'jailbreaking' the phone, which involves replacing the iPhone's firmware with a slightly modified version that does not enforce the signature check[, but] [d]oing so may be a circumvention of Apple's technical protection measures, which in the United States would be illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically makes exception for cell phone unlocking. Jail-breaking and therefore disabling the signature would be an essential procedure to unlock the phone through unofficial means. I therefore will take the liberty to revise the article unless contested otherwise. Please see http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.pdf, where it explicitly states that DMCA restrictions may be overcome for the purpose of unlocking cell phones. AmasianCrasian (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good source, I say go for it. In any case, the language in the article that states "[d]oing so may be a circumvention of Apple's technical protection measures, which in the United States would be illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is original research without a source and should be deleted anyway. -- Atama^chat 17:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from a copyright law junkie, but it seems that that source only makes a case for unlocking the cell phone, and not jailbreaking it. The paper argues how keeping a customer within a certain wireless carrier has little or nothing to do with protecting copyright and it's only a mechanism to benefit a third party, and this line of thinking may apply to third party apps, but the lack of cell phones in the market that run applications is too small to have made an impact in the legal system. There was a brief mention on how locking a cell phone protects the downloaded content from copyright infringement but it was inconclusive. This latter point could certainly be argued against third party apps, such as SSH'ing into the phone and downloading ringtones from it. That is kind of moot however because a copy is left in the iTunes library anyhow. -- Dgcaste (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, arguing that jailbreaking the iPhone is against the DMCA is OR unless we have a source specifically stating that. -- Atama^chat 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that. I read the first sentence then went for the juicy link. But I do maintain that it's sort of a stretch to relate jailbreaking to unlocking, because jailbreaking always precedes unsigned apps. -- Dgcaste (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jailbreaking has always been necessary for carrier lock removal. It really wouldn't do any good to remove the carrier lock on the baseband modem if you can't get to the user interface because of the activation restriction. The other effects can be regarded as "side-effects". That's one possible legal argument. Another is actually mentioned in one of the references cited by the article: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/commentary/circuitcourt/2007/08/circuitcourt_0829 Jailbreaking is strongly analogous to the whole "garage door" case. The software modifications only allow you to execute the code (libraries) on the iPhone in a different manner: called by our own binaries rather than by Apple's binaries. This is analogous to using a third-party garage door opener to open the door. Everyone already has the "firmware owner's permission to operate that software by virtue of purchasing the phone." Jailbreaking doesn't give access to code that ordinarily wouldn't be used/executed in a non-jailbroken environment anyway. However, that was all basically OR. But, I cannot find a reputable citation that says jailbreaking is likely to be illegal (though most articles discuss SIM-unlocks), and it will most likely never be tested in court so no one can say one way or another. Because of the lack of citations for anything but SIM unlocks, I think discussions of legality should be restricted to the SIM-unlocks section and the part in "third party applications" be removed, unless someone can find a citation that actually does discuss the legality of jailbreaking in particular. Planetbeing (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

IPhone alternatives

(proposing new section)

• Motorola ROKR E6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.148 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you even begin such a thing without delving into original research? In theory any phone could be an "alternative" to the iPhone. What would be the point? -- Atama^chat 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

True, and arguably there are a handful of better phones in the same market niche, with out the evil Apple Inc backing the hardware. Athomsfere (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G and iPhone as separate articles?

Shouldn't these two be considered distinct products? Or at least differentiated better in the iPhone article itself. The way it's set up currently is very confusing for those unfamiliar with the product. Demosthenes, blog 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page, your question is answered there. Thank you. -- Atama^chat 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized modifications (i.e. hacks)

The small section currently present seems pretty incomplete and the selection of information presented seems odd to me: For example, dvdjohn's activation method hasn't been really been used for over a year; not since around the initial release of the iPhone, in fact. The current method is direct patches to the binary responsible for keeping track of the activation status.

In the same paragraph, it would also be good if the word "unlock" be used strictly in the context of removing the SIM carrier lock, because that is the primary way that word is used in the community. There are perfectly good synonyms for "unlock" in English, and confusions in terminology harms the neophytes this article presumably primarily caters to.

It also seems odd to me that for jailbreaking, the only significant commentary is that doing so may or may not be illegal. There is no mention of how widespread of a phenomenon it is, judging by download statistics of jailbreaking tools, or how much of a vibrant community has formed out of it, and the many applications that were available, and how many developers benefited from the experience of developing on the jailbroken platform before moving their apps to the official SDK (e.g. the last.fm plugin). I don't know, it just seems to me that the section, with the only comment being the possible illegality (when it is NOT illegal, and something that Apple will very likely never sue over anyway), only casts a chilling effect and serves no informational purpose.

I know I'm supposed to "be bold" and edit this myself, but as a novice Wikipedian and also someone with a possible COI (as an iPhone Dev Team member), I'd prefer if I got others' opinion on it. I also think that some more information on the third-party scene would be helpful; it seems strange to me that no one has worked on it. Perhaps I just have a skewed perspective on how many people in the mainstream care about it. ;) I'm willing to write it myself, but it seems to me it would be better if it were documented by someone more removed. Planetbeing (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear pro-Apple / pro-iPhone agenda in this article

The iphone, and its many flaws/security issues are totally ignored on this article. It has serious pro-apple / pro-iphone bias.

I recommend a neutrality review, or a tag be added to the start that the article has bias. It is shamefull.

Please see the FAQ above on this talk page. Basically if you think this article does not discuss the iPhone's flaws, you didn't read it. -- Atama^chat 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3G Speed issues

Why is there no coverage of the 3G problems of the iphone?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328519,00.asp

"Consumers who purchased the iPhone 3G have reported reception problems with the device since its July 11 release."

This has already been discussed above on this talk page. -- Atama^chat 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropped Calls Problem

Why is there no coverage of the 3G iphone's dropped calls problem?

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080817/BUSINESS/808170303

"Dropped calls plague iPhone 3G"

"From New York to Stockholm, 3G iPhone owners are complaining loudly about connection failures — sometimes repeatedly — during calls."

This has already been discussed above on this talk page. -- Atama^chat 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots recoverable Security problem

Where is the coverage of this Security Problem?

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/hacker-says-sec.html

"iPhone Takes Screenshots of Everything You Do"

"If you've got an iPhone, everything you have done on your handset has been temporarily stored as a screenshot that hackers or forensics experts could eventually recover, according to a renowned iPhone hacker who exposed the security flaw in a webcast Thursday." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.233 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So does .bash_history. -- Dgcaste (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlocked iPhone

i don't know if this is important for the article but there are some countries in europe where its forbidden by law to sell the phone with sim or netlock (italy, belgium...). maybe we should add this? LizzzardKing (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)not bad

I think these countries buckled to the corporate machine's lobbying pressure and the whole "OMG IPHONE!" hype and gave them an exception. They should have stuck to their guns but then all the tweens would stop voting for them because they prevented the iPhone from reaching their country and sim-locking network operators. Towel401 (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way make sure that whatever you add is sourced. -- Atama^chat 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet connectivity

In the internet connectivity section, this is stated

"Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi or a wide area GSM or EDGE network, both second-generation (2G) wireless data standards. "

EDGE is a 3G data standard, not 2G Bam2403 (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)bam2403

Edge Is not Widely considered a 3G Standard see [1] "EDGE can be considered a 3G radio technology and is part of ITU's 3G definition but is most frequently referred to as 2.75G." Speer320 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, that still does not qualify it to labeled at 2G.Bam2403 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)bam2403

hsdpa speed

In regards to the section regarding internet access, i work for a Telco and the spec sheets refer to the iPhone as a HSDPA 3.6 device not a 7.2 one. Unfortunately i have found no references externally as all the information i have is for internal use only and cannot be published, but figured it would be worth mentioning in case anyone else could track down a reference for this so we can clarify the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.144.21 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Password By-pass at Startup Security / Privacy

Why is there no coverage of the Security flaw in the password bypass flaw?

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Apple-iPhone-Passcode-Bypass-Made-Public/

"The passcode feature on the latest version of Apple’s iPhone can be bypassed, potentially allowing an unauthorized person to access data on the device if it is lost or stolen"

As I understand it, this was fixed by adding a sort of "Delete all the data in case an unauthorized user gets ahold of it" mode in the 2.1 patch 32.97.110.142 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

iPhone's touchscreen

The iPhone touchscreen can also be activated by fruit, wet tissues, or anything that has a large amount of water in it.

Kevin chen2003 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

3G Plastic Cracks

There's been a bit of uproar in the community (and a class-action lawsuit) filed because the 3G devices are showing inexplicable cracks in the plastic. Where should this fit into the article? 32.97.110.142 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If we find a reliable source that both verifies the factuality and shows notability we can add it, otherwise it doesn't fit anywhere in the article. -- Atama^chat 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DRM

It should be stated in the feature list that this device has DRM that would prevent media playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.204.10 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar Devices

I'll note that I am biased here, (I am an HTC user), but from my point of view, the similar devices section sounds too much like the iphone was the leader in touchscreen phones. This is not the case - apple released one in 1983!! http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/apple-touchscreen-phone-circa-1983

"Since the iPhone was released similar devices such as the HTC Touch family have appeared on the market[118]" - Both released in the same month! HTC had also released other devices previous to the Touch family that performed similar and further features to the iphone, including the trinity with hsdpa and gps released on Sep 7th 2006 according to engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/07/htc-gets-official-on-their-q4-lineup/

"many of these are simply touchscreen based phones with a similar form factor." some balance here? better functionality, more open architecture.. not to mention that some of them also have different form factors - slide out qwerty keyboards etc..

"Devices released by Chinese manufacturers such as CECT and Meizu copy the design and user interface of the iPhone more accurately[119]" more accurately?? so the others were failing to copy the iPhone's design despite their being released far earlier? This seems strange.Roggg (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire section is irrelevant, original research. The "counterfeit iPhones" section is also irrelevant; since when is it notable to have a knock-off of any popular electronic device? I'm deleting all of that stuff. -- Atama^chat 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Text input

although a large number of users evidently have no issue using the device for this purpose.

I'd change this text, because it's not true. It's painful to type a website or an e-mail address on iphone, since there's no spell checking in these features. (189.63.70.7 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

So because you personally have trouble using the keyboard, then clearly nobody else could possibly be fine using it, right? -- Atama^chat 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of basic Bluetooth functionality

It should be stated also in the "Specifications" section that Bluetooth functionality lacks stereo audio (requires A2DP), laptop tethering (requires DUN and SPP), or the OBEX file transfer protocol (requires FTP, GOEP, and OPP), as people may look only the "Specifications" and not the "Others" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.227.10 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When people see a device supports Bluetooth, much is assumed. They are likely to assume full A2DP support in the case of multi-media devices such as the iPhone. Zooche (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone "assume" such things when the article explicitly states that the iPhone lacks those features? If someone navigates to this article, just reads the specifications section (which is only a brief outline of features) and then stops reading then of course they will have misconceptions. We can't be responsible if someone is too ignorant to read the actual article. -- Atama^chat 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

iPhone's cell phone features inadequately described (call handling, SMS and contact management)

The article does not focus adequately on the iPhone's shortcomings as a true cell phone.

For a list of its shortcomings as far as SMS, contacts and basic call management, some content should be included like the table found at

http://blog.vkistudios.com/index.cfm/2008/10/17/The-iPhone-aint-no-cell-phone

Zooche (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with describing "shortcomings" is that the term alone flames personal opinion. In the past, someone attempted to disqualify the iPhone as a camera phone by relying on his own ideology about what defines a camera phone. And he even went as far as re-defining the term on the wikipedia page itself. This last attempt at disqualifying the iPhone as a "true cell phone" is just another one of those attempts, and just like the camera phone it'll take a lot more than just one blog to make the iPhone out to be lacking in these areas. Groink (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason why this is Wikipedia and not Wikiblog. It's not a place for everyone to express their opinions. The table mentioned in that blog is one person's opinion of "cell phone requirements", but frankly half of the things in that table are features most other cell phones I've owned can't do either. -- Atama^chat 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support of which standards

Which GSM bands are supported? Is PDC (Personal Digital Cellular) supported? Is CDMA (Code Divisional Multiple Access) supported? Is WCDMA supported?

All of these questions are answered if you read the article. Look in the infobox where it says "Networks". -- Atama^chat 18:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to answer your question more specifically: It's a quad-band GSM phone (which is stated in the infobox, including which bands specifically); it obviously doesn't support PDC (which is pretty much obsolete); CDMA is also an older standard you don't find anymore unless you actually mean CDMA2000, but CDMA2000 is incompatible with UMTS which the infobox states that the iPhone uses. UMTS is of course the same thing as WCDMA. Again, if you read the infobox and know what those standards are, your questions are already answered. -- Atama^chat 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

SIM lock - Germany - False info

^{(see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IPhone/Archive_9#iPhone.27s_unlocking_status_in_Germany_not_correct)}
"In Germany, a company is not allowed to lock the SIM card to itself."??? That sentence needs to be removed. The footnote does not support this claim, and the following footnote specifically contradicts what the author was probably trying to say, namely
"In Germany, a company is not allowed to lock a phone to accept only the company's SIM cards." Someone please remove it. I can't.--Psrq (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously bogus, everything else in that paragraph invalidates that statement. If companies aren't "allowed" to lock a phone, then why did Vodaphone have to get an injunction and why did T-Mobile later get it overturned? My guess is that someone slipped that sentence into the paragraph by itself and it was overlooked. Thanks for pointing this out, it has been removed. -- Atama^chat 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:) --Psrq (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's carrier for iPhone is AT&T, not Claro

Since the main article is locked, someone with permissions should fix that error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.100.150 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, while Claro is big in Puerto Rico, AT&T was the one that released the original iPhone there and also released the 3G version as well. I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out.-- Atama^chat 05:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured?

Is this article not a nomination yet? Why not? There's several pictures, resources, and a well-organized list of information. What's missing? Colonel Marksman (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally this article has been too unstable for FA consideration. Even now when the iPhone furor has calmed down somewhat, controversial suggestions/changes/complaints spring up. Maybe someone can nominate it, but as of now the article only has "B-status" as far as quality, we may want to nominate it for Good Article status before thinking of submitting it as a Featured Article. A nomination for GA will also help point out some flaws in the article that might have been overlooked by the editors who regularly work on it. -- Atama^chat 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We could try peer review. They are often inundated with requests, but given it's a fairly popular topic, you (I don;t have time to really involve myself at the moment) might get some feedback. Then try GA. Ultimately, assessment does not make an excellent article; rather, excellent articles are assessed as such.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G in Venezuela

Since the article is locked, can anybody put in the carriers section "movistar" Venezuela?

[www.apple.com/iphone] [www.movistar.com/iphone] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardavid58 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

About the kill-switch

In the article, it's mentioned that "Apple also installs a kill switch in the programs it distributes through the App store: all applications can be remotely disabled at Apple's command."

The kill switch is not added to individual programs like it's claimed here, it's an OS level feature that checks a publicly available .xml file on the internet, and the iPhone OS will disable applications on the device itself if their names are found in this .xml "blacklist". So far, this list remained empty and was never used to remove an application.

The rest of the paragraph talks about Apple restrictions on which applications are allowed in the Appstore, and these restrictions are not related to the kills-witch itself. Apple haven't used the kill-switch to remotely remove apps that were "banned" from the Appstore because of these restrictions, like Netshare. To avoid confusion, it should also be mentioned that according to Apple itself, the kill-switch will only be used on malicious applications (see link 47, which is already found in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.88.138 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically what is in the article now is true, however it is worded in such a way that it is confusing. I've made an attempt to clarify the language based on your suggestions. -- Atama^chat 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BlackBerry

I tried following one of the "BlackBerry" links near the bottom of the article (section 4) and it led me to the article on the blackberry fruit instead of the BlackBerry cell phone. Since the article is locked, can someone change this? Gogglemaster (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. The problem was that someone spelled it "Blackberry" instead of "BlackBerry". -- Atama^chat 21:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

restricted blue tooth connectivity

Should the limited connectivity of bluetooth be listed as a restriction at the end of the page? Bouncingmolar (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The restrictions section is for restrictions placed on phone usage by Apple. The Bluetooth limitations are because it lacks hardware profiles. There's a difference between Apple preventing you from doing something with the phone, and the phone just not having certain features. -- Atama^chat 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth profiles are software. Bluetooth on the iPhone has the features chosen by Apple. The same hardware in the iPhone can be used for more functions, it is the design choice of Apple that not more profiles are available. Regardless, in either case the issue deserves to be included in the article, it is directly relevant to the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.94.208 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Rivals

Many companies have made their aim to make a better a product than the iPhones. But they are still mislead, e.g. HTC Tuch HD 2, Samsung Omnia 2. A section to the challenges faced by iPhone can also be set up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssullere (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not relevant. Most popular devices have imitators, the iPhone isn't particularly notable because of that. I don't see how a section like that would improve the article, and how would it be determined what is and isn't an imitator? -- Atama頭 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to list devices like the Palm Pre and Motorola Droid in the See also section. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

so what? now every devise that happens to be a touch screen will be an imitator. people act like apple invented the touchscreen for godsake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.227.155 (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Although Apple doesn't invent the technologies used in its products, its implementation of certain technologies eventually become the standard across the industry. That's why I find the dozen or so lawsuits Nokia has filed against Apple re: licensing of its patents very funny. Despite Nokia owning all these patents, it really never implemented their reported billions of dollars in R&A into its products as effectively as Apple. Nokia might as well invent something and then call Apple to see how to implement it. So in a way, despite X-company inventing touch screen, you might as well say that Apple invented the implementation of touch screen because, in all honesty the implementation is what everyone will remember, and not its inventor. Without Googling for the answer, who invented the mouse? Who invented pressure sensitive writing tablets? Guesses will usually be Apple and Wacom, but despite the answers being wrong, these companies will be remembered for bringing the technologies to market, and the average Joe will care less who actually invented them. Our job at Wikipedia is neither to set the record straight who invented what, nor is it to single out certain competitive products in the "See also" section. Groink (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)