![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
AllThingsD ( http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080430/moritz/) is reporting that "AT&T is planning to put some extra shine on the even sleeker new Apple iPhone. When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy."
The source of the AllThingsD article is ( http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/29/att-to-cut-the-price-of-apples-new-iphone/) which also reveals; - The new iPhone is expected to be released on the one-year anniversary of the original iPhone debut June 27 or thereabouts. - The new iPhone will be 2.5 mm thinner than the 11.7 mm original. - The new iPhone will also have a GPS chip for navigation and other location-based services. - Apple is expected to have two versions of the new iPhone, an 8-gigabyte-memory and a 16-gigabyte-memory model with price tags widely expected to be $399 and $499. - AT&T is preparing to subsidize $200 of the cost of a new iPhone, bringing the price down to $199 for customers who sign two-year contracts.
I think it is time to add this information to the main article.
GlobalMaverick (
talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)GlobalMaverick
As a matter of past history, it is very uncharacteristic for a partner or other associate of Apple to reveal information about an upcoming Apple product before Apple. Even if a piece of information is well-sourced, IMHO it should come from Apple. If it were any other company, then the 3rd-party information could have some credibility to it. But in the case of Apple - who's known for anything but leaking information (and even purposely sending false information in different directions to detect leaks in the social system), the source of the information is even more vital to Wikipedia's credibility. Groink ( talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there is an important difference between (i) writing an article based on rumors and speculations and (ii) mentioning such rumors and speculations. (i) is, of course, off-limit. But, (ii), I think we are allowed to do (ii). Maybe it's just me, but I am getting this distinctive impression that 3G iphone will be out in June. Also, do you think it is ok to add links to those articles via ref? Since news article titles often contain words about the date of the release, this amounts to the mention of the release date in the article, in effect. -- Taku ( talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In Italy, iPhone will be distributed by both TIM (Telecom Italia Mobile) and Vodafone, as wrote here -- 79.31.44.229 ( talk) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Vodafone's injunction was overturned in Germany --- it means that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany.
T-Mobile Germany VOLUNTARILY promised to provide unlocking codes at the end of the iPhone contract in Germany. The key word is "voluntarily" --- again saying that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.75.87 ( talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited the link from Vodafone to Vodafone Essar.-- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
From Internet connectivity section:
"The EDGE network benefits iPhone users in the U.S. by providing greater availability than 3G, as carriers based in the U.S. do not have full 3G coverage.[34] By contrast, 3G coverage ranges from 60 to 90-percent in the United Kingdom.[35]"
EDGE benefits iPhone users cause it has limited coverage?? Its like saying dial-up benefits computer X users cause cable internet has limited coverage! Turning a drawback into a benefit like that is ridiculous.
"Since the iPhone's inception, the use of the handset for Internet connectivity has exposed one or more trends. According to AT&T and Google, the iPhone generated 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[36]"
This is a silly statement as the linked article compares iPhones data transfers with regular phones data transfer! Thats analogous to saying that "users who have computer with a browser and email have higher data transfers than users who only have email client", is that an interesting trend or just manipulation? Of course simple handsets will have lower data rate as they are only used for calling and texting, either compare iPhone users' transfer to other smart and PDA phones users' transfer or don't compare it at all.
Kezorm (
talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kezorm. These paragraphs need work. Here is what they were:
Note the poor grammar, spacing, and capitalization. Who added these paragraphs? Why even mention CDMA and specific carriers if the iPhone doesn't support it?
I have revised these paragraphs below:
It could still use some work, but it has less bias and makes much more sense now. That said, when the 2nd generation comes out I'm sure these points will be moot anyway. ~ Paul T +/ C 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This has come up in the past (adding "hacks" to the article) and there were recent attempts to add such information again so I thought it would be appropriate to start a discussion about this. I personally feel that there is no harm exactly in explaining how to unlock an iPhone, that information is already out on the Web and easy to find, so I think we don't need to censor the article in such a manner. At the same time, Wikipedia isn't a how-to and it's beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to instruct people in the best way to do so, so having links to jailbreaking programs and advice on the best method is not a good idea. I'd like to see if others agree. -- Atama chat 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just read on iLounge that o2 and Carphone Warehouse are not restocking the 8GB iPhone once they have sold out. Is this due to them making way for the new 3G iPhone? Jay794 ( talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly but there is are loads of discussions going round about the 3G iPhone, with a GPS. Will be interesting to see what happens at the WWDC. Jay794 ( talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
o2 has stopped selling the iPhone. http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/08/iphone-is-good-and-done-in-the-uk-until-the-3g-version-anywa/ Should o2 and the UK be removed from the carrier list? Technically the iPhone doesn't have a carrier in the UK anymore... 122.106.242.135 ( talk) 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is no longer accurate, as o2 are still selling the 16GB version online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.98.172 ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do other editors feel that the infobox has lost its purpose? The infobox is supposed to be a quick sheet of sorts, kind of like a sidebar, and should be very short in length. But right now I must scroll about 1/4 of the article's length to reach the bottom of the infobox. And the carrier list is the cause of it! Is there some other way of presenting this information? Maybe move the carrier list out of the infobox and move it to the body of the article itself? Groink ( talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why have all the images of the iPhone's display been blurred? -- 194.164.80.71 ( talk) 13:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply have un-blurred images on the site until we get a request from Apple to remove them (thought I can't ever imagine them doing so). If Apple truly has a problem with pictures of it's interface, they would simply request that Wikipedia remove them. Apple is not the Gestapo, they will not destroy Wikipedia for having images of the iPhone interface. 74.73.75.65 ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Would it be OK to replace blurred-out images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with images directly from Apple's website, hosted on Apple's website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.75.65 ( talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited a bit blur in pictures...now the blur is not so hard and pictures (in my opinion) look a bit better and still the "copyrighted parts" are kept obscure...so what others think?...Is so alright or I must restore that previous version? Ausis ( talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an offshoot from the images discussion. Reading through the comments, it made me think of an even bigger issue: redundancy and lack of cohesion between the three major articles:
From what I'm been reading between these three articles, there is much too much redundant information. For example, let's say Java came out for the iPhone. That same information will be repeated on the other two articles. IMHO, this is poor management of the articles. The three articles should be treated as a series, rather than be three totally separate articles, each attempting to cover 100-percent of the device or OS.
The iPod touch is actually the hardware foundation of this line of iPod hardware, while the iPhone is basically the iPod touch with additional hardware and software, and iPhone OS being the common OS between the two. As someone stated earlier, the iPod touch and iPhone articles should focus on only the hardware, including multi-touch. The iPhone article should emphasize on the additional hardware that the iPod touch lacks. iPhone OS should then encompass all the software-related information - including applications, software upgrades and updates. If you look at the Mac OS X and the various Macintosh articles, you'll notice that they take a similar organization to what I'm proposing here.
I think if we can re-organize the articles to somehow complement each other, then when we do have issues that come up such as the blurry imagery, then we can better address these issues in a more consistent fashion. Groink ( talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I say blurred images on iPhone is somewhat disturbing.
I propose replacing all images with only the image of the phone itself with no interface. Bentoman ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's ponder this issue in another direction... Rather than stating that we must have an image of X or Y, we should think about the purpose of the images themselves. I don't want to search for it, but I remember reading a Wikipedia guideline where images should be used in order to convey an idea that can't be described in words alone. Regarding the iPhone, I see a photo of the iPhone turned off no different than, for example, a sports car with the front hood closed. Showing the GUI on an iPhone serves only one purpose - to demonstrate what the GUI looks like. IMHO, this is well covered in the iPhone OS article - as the GUI in reality is actually iPhone OS and NOT the iPhone itself. Think about it... If I wanted to show someone an iMac, showing the GUI to me is useless because an iMac could also run Linux or Windows (Intel versions.) These are the things you must think about before you start uploading images to an article. With that, I believe that showing an iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable.
One other thing... In my last rant regarding GFDL, my premise there was to have the English Wikipedia version of the iPhone article published on the CD release of Wikipedia. If we start uploading images to English Wikipedia directly, bypassing Wikimedia Commons, then those images won't be published in the CD release. That is why it is HIGHLY ENCOURAGED that we upload all of our images to Wikimedia Commons so that our hard work can be found on the CD release. Groink ( talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion, the images for the iPhone article must have NO interface, focus directly on the hardware itself. Anything related to the software portion should be placed on the iPhone OS article. This way, the blurring is avoided, since the iPhone article would focus on the hardware (such as multi-touch technology and etc. ), and the software interface (such as the keyboard, iPod software and etc.) would be focused more on the iPhone OS article. Beside, images of the OS interface is mostly on the OS article. (such as the home screen) Bentoman ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible though. IPhone's keyboard is FULLY powered by iPhone OS. The hardware that powers the keyboard is the multi-touch screen. Remember, the keyboard is virtual, powered by an operating system, which is the iPhone OS. Therefore, having the image of the iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable. The keyboard interface image belongs to the iPhone OS article. Remember, multi-touch interacts the keyboard, the keyboard is part of iPhone OS. Bentoman ( talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you are right about that, but I think it is wise that some of the images be replaced. For example, the first image should be the phone itself, no interface (the home screen image is on the iPhone OS article, therfore the picture that shows the phone at the top of the article should be the hardware itself)
For the keyboard, show only the keyboard itself, along with the fingers that person is typing. The rest is blurred.
Third, the image where wikipedia page is shown, delete, there is already an image of it on the iPhone OS article itself.
If none of those action seems fesible, what do you suggest? This, I must have an answer for. If no solution is found, I have no solution but to have the admin lock the article. Bentoman ( talk) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoman ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does it seem realistic that Apple will sue Wikipedia over images of the interface? I think not. Lawyers are expensive, and images of the interface can't possible be against the business interests of Apple. They are probably happy for the free publicity, and not itching to sue anyone in sight. 24.239.166.200 ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
These last two points should be read repeatedly until they sink in. We're here to write the Wikipedia. The online wikipedia. All else is secondary. Sorry Groink. Maury ( talk) 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that the deletion of any image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is not logged for everyone to see. Previous uploads of Apple-developed images onto WC have been removed. I've seen this with many other Apple-related articles through the years. For the record, I do not see a problem using images that were created by people outside of Apple, such as taking a screenshot of the GUI. I never once argued that they were not allowed - that was an argument made by someone else and not me. As long as you upload the image to WC with a properly selected license and written rationale, the image should stick and everything I've said up to now would be solved.
Keep one thing in mind... The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to develop a centralized image repository for ALL Wikimedia-related projects. In short, the use of the image repository is highly recommended so that the dozens of different Wikipedia projects each do not upload the same images to its servers. Imagine the same iPhone image being repeated again and again and again on every server. And if a better image is available, you would need an account on every one of those projects, and log onto every one of them in order to change the image. Instead, all Wikipedia editors should be storing their images onto WC and link to them in their Wikipedia articles. I have not seen this use of WC being pushed on the Apple-related articles, but I've most certainly have seen the idea pushed on many others projects - as I've observed literally thousands of photos deleted from both WC and English Wikipedia on the basis of failing non-free status in the photos' rationale. For one to use English Wikipedia to as an image depository in order to avoid the non-free requirement (i.e. claim fair use over non-free) is ridiculous. Groink ( talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, we don't need a fair use claim. Is there some way I can make this more clear? Maury ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
From the AfD article for "3G iphone":
So, let the games commence! - Denimadept ( talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that video recordings made on other mobile devices often display an artifact that I don't know the name for. I can only describe it as a sort of vertical "lag". If the camera is moved quickly left/right, the bottom and top of the objects in the image will appear to wobble. A particularly visible example is seen if you point the video out the side of a car while driving, in which case the top or bottom would be seen to be clearing "leading" the other. The effect can be seen in a muted way in this video: [3]. Often there's also a "tearing" effect where horizontal artifacts appear as vertical segments seem to "separate". (1) Is there a name for this effect? (2) Is there a wikipedia article about it? Because most mobile video capture has this effect, but the iPhone doesn't, and I think that's very interesting. Sbwoodside ( talk) 07:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it counts as far as mentioning that is uses a rolling shutter. But it doesn't say anything about vertical distortion, so we can't either. HereToHelp ( talk to me) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
AllThingsD ( http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080430/moritz/) is reporting that "AT&T is planning to put some extra shine on the even sleeker new Apple iPhone. When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy."
The source of the AllThingsD article is ( http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/29/att-to-cut-the-price-of-apples-new-iphone/) which also reveals; - The new iPhone is expected to be released on the one-year anniversary of the original iPhone debut June 27 or thereabouts. - The new iPhone will be 2.5 mm thinner than the 11.7 mm original. - The new iPhone will also have a GPS chip for navigation and other location-based services. - Apple is expected to have two versions of the new iPhone, an 8-gigabyte-memory and a 16-gigabyte-memory model with price tags widely expected to be $399 and $499. - AT&T is preparing to subsidize $200 of the cost of a new iPhone, bringing the price down to $199 for customers who sign two-year contracts.
I think it is time to add this information to the main article.
GlobalMaverick (
talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)GlobalMaverick
As a matter of past history, it is very uncharacteristic for a partner or other associate of Apple to reveal information about an upcoming Apple product before Apple. Even if a piece of information is well-sourced, IMHO it should come from Apple. If it were any other company, then the 3rd-party information could have some credibility to it. But in the case of Apple - who's known for anything but leaking information (and even purposely sending false information in different directions to detect leaks in the social system), the source of the information is even more vital to Wikipedia's credibility. Groink ( talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there is an important difference between (i) writing an article based on rumors and speculations and (ii) mentioning such rumors and speculations. (i) is, of course, off-limit. But, (ii), I think we are allowed to do (ii). Maybe it's just me, but I am getting this distinctive impression that 3G iphone will be out in June. Also, do you think it is ok to add links to those articles via ref? Since news article titles often contain words about the date of the release, this amounts to the mention of the release date in the article, in effect. -- Taku ( talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In Italy, iPhone will be distributed by both TIM (Telecom Italia Mobile) and Vodafone, as wrote here -- 79.31.44.229 ( talk) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Vodafone's injunction was overturned in Germany --- it means that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany.
T-Mobile Germany VOLUNTARILY promised to provide unlocking codes at the end of the iPhone contract in Germany. The key word is "voluntarily" --- again saying that there is no German law prohibiting simlocking of mobile phones in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.75.87 ( talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited the link from Vodafone to Vodafone Essar.-- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
From Internet connectivity section:
"The EDGE network benefits iPhone users in the U.S. by providing greater availability than 3G, as carriers based in the U.S. do not have full 3G coverage.[34] By contrast, 3G coverage ranges from 60 to 90-percent in the United Kingdom.[35]"
EDGE benefits iPhone users cause it has limited coverage?? Its like saying dial-up benefits computer X users cause cable internet has limited coverage! Turning a drawback into a benefit like that is ridiculous.
"Since the iPhone's inception, the use of the handset for Internet connectivity has exposed one or more trends. According to AT&T and Google, the iPhone generated 50 times more search requests than any other mobile handset.[36]"
This is a silly statement as the linked article compares iPhones data transfers with regular phones data transfer! Thats analogous to saying that "users who have computer with a browser and email have higher data transfers than users who only have email client", is that an interesting trend or just manipulation? Of course simple handsets will have lower data rate as they are only used for calling and texting, either compare iPhone users' transfer to other smart and PDA phones users' transfer or don't compare it at all.
Kezorm (
talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kezorm. These paragraphs need work. Here is what they were:
Note the poor grammar, spacing, and capitalization. Who added these paragraphs? Why even mention CDMA and specific carriers if the iPhone doesn't support it?
I have revised these paragraphs below:
It could still use some work, but it has less bias and makes much more sense now. That said, when the 2nd generation comes out I'm sure these points will be moot anyway. ~ Paul T +/ C 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This has come up in the past (adding "hacks" to the article) and there were recent attempts to add such information again so I thought it would be appropriate to start a discussion about this. I personally feel that there is no harm exactly in explaining how to unlock an iPhone, that information is already out on the Web and easy to find, so I think we don't need to censor the article in such a manner. At the same time, Wikipedia isn't a how-to and it's beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to instruct people in the best way to do so, so having links to jailbreaking programs and advice on the best method is not a good idea. I'd like to see if others agree. -- Atama chat 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just read on iLounge that o2 and Carphone Warehouse are not restocking the 8GB iPhone once they have sold out. Is this due to them making way for the new 3G iPhone? Jay794 ( talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly but there is are loads of discussions going round about the 3G iPhone, with a GPS. Will be interesting to see what happens at the WWDC. Jay794 ( talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
o2 has stopped selling the iPhone. http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/08/iphone-is-good-and-done-in-the-uk-until-the-3g-version-anywa/ Should o2 and the UK be removed from the carrier list? Technically the iPhone doesn't have a carrier in the UK anymore... 122.106.242.135 ( talk) 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is no longer accurate, as o2 are still selling the 16GB version online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.98.172 ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do other editors feel that the infobox has lost its purpose? The infobox is supposed to be a quick sheet of sorts, kind of like a sidebar, and should be very short in length. But right now I must scroll about 1/4 of the article's length to reach the bottom of the infobox. And the carrier list is the cause of it! Is there some other way of presenting this information? Maybe move the carrier list out of the infobox and move it to the body of the article itself? Groink ( talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why have all the images of the iPhone's display been blurred? -- 194.164.80.71 ( talk) 13:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply have un-blurred images on the site until we get a request from Apple to remove them (thought I can't ever imagine them doing so). If Apple truly has a problem with pictures of it's interface, they would simply request that Wikipedia remove them. Apple is not the Gestapo, they will not destroy Wikipedia for having images of the iPhone interface. 74.73.75.65 ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Would it be OK to replace blurred-out images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with images directly from Apple's website, hosted on Apple's website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.75.65 ( talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited a bit blur in pictures...now the blur is not so hard and pictures (in my opinion) look a bit better and still the "copyrighted parts" are kept obscure...so what others think?...Is so alright or I must restore that previous version? Ausis ( talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an offshoot from the images discussion. Reading through the comments, it made me think of an even bigger issue: redundancy and lack of cohesion between the three major articles:
From what I'm been reading between these three articles, there is much too much redundant information. For example, let's say Java came out for the iPhone. That same information will be repeated on the other two articles. IMHO, this is poor management of the articles. The three articles should be treated as a series, rather than be three totally separate articles, each attempting to cover 100-percent of the device or OS.
The iPod touch is actually the hardware foundation of this line of iPod hardware, while the iPhone is basically the iPod touch with additional hardware and software, and iPhone OS being the common OS between the two. As someone stated earlier, the iPod touch and iPhone articles should focus on only the hardware, including multi-touch. The iPhone article should emphasize on the additional hardware that the iPod touch lacks. iPhone OS should then encompass all the software-related information - including applications, software upgrades and updates. If you look at the Mac OS X and the various Macintosh articles, you'll notice that they take a similar organization to what I'm proposing here.
I think if we can re-organize the articles to somehow complement each other, then when we do have issues that come up such as the blurry imagery, then we can better address these issues in a more consistent fashion. Groink ( talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I say blurred images on iPhone is somewhat disturbing.
I propose replacing all images with only the image of the phone itself with no interface. Bentoman ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's ponder this issue in another direction... Rather than stating that we must have an image of X or Y, we should think about the purpose of the images themselves. I don't want to search for it, but I remember reading a Wikipedia guideline where images should be used in order to convey an idea that can't be described in words alone. Regarding the iPhone, I see a photo of the iPhone turned off no different than, for example, a sports car with the front hood closed. Showing the GUI on an iPhone serves only one purpose - to demonstrate what the GUI looks like. IMHO, this is well covered in the iPhone OS article - as the GUI in reality is actually iPhone OS and NOT the iPhone itself. Think about it... If I wanted to show someone an iMac, showing the GUI to me is useless because an iMac could also run Linux or Windows (Intel versions.) These are the things you must think about before you start uploading images to an article. With that, I believe that showing an iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable.
One other thing... In my last rant regarding GFDL, my premise there was to have the English Wikipedia version of the iPhone article published on the CD release of Wikipedia. If we start uploading images to English Wikipedia directly, bypassing Wikimedia Commons, then those images won't be published in the CD release. That is why it is HIGHLY ENCOURAGED that we upload all of our images to Wikimedia Commons so that our hard work can be found on the CD release. Groink ( talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion, the images for the iPhone article must have NO interface, focus directly on the hardware itself. Anything related to the software portion should be placed on the iPhone OS article. This way, the blurring is avoided, since the iPhone article would focus on the hardware (such as multi-touch technology and etc. ), and the software interface (such as the keyboard, iPod software and etc.) would be focused more on the iPhone OS article. Beside, images of the OS interface is mostly on the OS article. (such as the home screen) Bentoman ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible though. IPhone's keyboard is FULLY powered by iPhone OS. The hardware that powers the keyboard is the multi-touch screen. Remember, the keyboard is virtual, powered by an operating system, which is the iPhone OS. Therefore, having the image of the iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable. The keyboard interface image belongs to the iPhone OS article. Remember, multi-touch interacts the keyboard, the keyboard is part of iPhone OS. Bentoman ( talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you are right about that, but I think it is wise that some of the images be replaced. For example, the first image should be the phone itself, no interface (the home screen image is on the iPhone OS article, therfore the picture that shows the phone at the top of the article should be the hardware itself)
For the keyboard, show only the keyboard itself, along with the fingers that person is typing. The rest is blurred.
Third, the image where wikipedia page is shown, delete, there is already an image of it on the iPhone OS article itself.
If none of those action seems fesible, what do you suggest? This, I must have an answer for. If no solution is found, I have no solution but to have the admin lock the article. Bentoman ( talk) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoman ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does it seem realistic that Apple will sue Wikipedia over images of the interface? I think not. Lawyers are expensive, and images of the interface can't possible be against the business interests of Apple. They are probably happy for the free publicity, and not itching to sue anyone in sight. 24.239.166.200 ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
These last two points should be read repeatedly until they sink in. We're here to write the Wikipedia. The online wikipedia. All else is secondary. Sorry Groink. Maury ( talk) 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that the deletion of any image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is not logged for everyone to see. Previous uploads of Apple-developed images onto WC have been removed. I've seen this with many other Apple-related articles through the years. For the record, I do not see a problem using images that were created by people outside of Apple, such as taking a screenshot of the GUI. I never once argued that they were not allowed - that was an argument made by someone else and not me. As long as you upload the image to WC with a properly selected license and written rationale, the image should stick and everything I've said up to now would be solved.
Keep one thing in mind... The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to develop a centralized image repository for ALL Wikimedia-related projects. In short, the use of the image repository is highly recommended so that the dozens of different Wikipedia projects each do not upload the same images to its servers. Imagine the same iPhone image being repeated again and again and again on every server. And if a better image is available, you would need an account on every one of those projects, and log onto every one of them in order to change the image. Instead, all Wikipedia editors should be storing their images onto WC and link to them in their Wikipedia articles. I have not seen this use of WC being pushed on the Apple-related articles, but I've most certainly have seen the idea pushed on many others projects - as I've observed literally thousands of photos deleted from both WC and English Wikipedia on the basis of failing non-free status in the photos' rationale. For one to use English Wikipedia to as an image depository in order to avoid the non-free requirement (i.e. claim fair use over non-free) is ridiculous. Groink ( talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, we don't need a fair use claim. Is there some way I can make this more clear? Maury ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
From the AfD article for "3G iphone":
So, let the games commence! - Denimadept ( talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that video recordings made on other mobile devices often display an artifact that I don't know the name for. I can only describe it as a sort of vertical "lag". If the camera is moved quickly left/right, the bottom and top of the objects in the image will appear to wobble. A particularly visible example is seen if you point the video out the side of a car while driving, in which case the top or bottom would be seen to be clearing "leading" the other. The effect can be seen in a muted way in this video: [3]. Often there's also a "tearing" effect where horizontal artifacts appear as vertical segments seem to "separate". (1) Is there a name for this effect? (2) Is there a wikipedia article about it? Because most mobile video capture has this effect, but the iPhone doesn't, and I think that's very interesting. Sbwoodside ( talk) 07:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it counts as far as mentioning that is uses a rolling shutter. But it doesn't say anything about vertical distortion, so we can't either. HereToHelp ( talk to me) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)